I move the following amendments—

The clause will then read as follows—

I rise merely to say that I accept these amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he has any intention of tidying up the definitions at this stage.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

I understand the problem of the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) but I should like to refer him to the Afrikaans text and also to the principal Act. All that is being done here is to add “butter-making” in the English text of the principal Act and “botter-bereiding” in the Afrikaans text. It is stated here specifically—

In other words, there is already provision for a proper inquiry, and a period of two years is granted after the inquiry. In other words, if the amendment of the hon. member for King William’s Town is accepted, one will only be repeating what is already stated in the Act, and I trust that the hon. member will be prepared to accept this clause as printed.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When this debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with the effects of the Unemployment Insurance Act amendments and the effect of changes in this Act converting it from an insurance measure to a social benefits Act. Sir, this Act has been amended on nine occasions, and we must not lose sight of the fact that this is an insurance Act and not a social benefits Act, which would normally be administered by the Social Welfare Department. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this fund has had an actuarial evaluation as to its potential. We have a feeling that when dealing with amendments to this Act it is almost a question of hit-and-miss. In Section 2, I am glad to hear, that employer and the employee interests have come together to increase the ceiling as far as the payment of benefits is concerned. We realize that wages have gone up. We have had two increases in the past in the ceiling, and we welcome that provision. We find, however, that only one class of worker has been affected; the benefits of other classes of workers have not been affected. One wonders whether the Minister has considered the question of increasing the ceiling in the case of other workers in view of the fact that the purchasing power of their money has also decreased.

We are pleased to see that the Minister has agreed to the extension of the Act to what might be called the permanent seasonal employees. But we would also like the Minister to consider the position of the seasonal workers in the citrus and apple industries. These workers work for a certain period in the apple industry where they are employed as packers and then they work for a certain period again in the citrus industry. We therefore have a migration of the same workers from the Fastern Transvaal to the Cape and vice versa. These workers are employed in two industries which are similar but they do not qualify for benefits under the eight-months provision because they are only employed for three to four months in one industry and for a similar period in another area in another industry, doing the same kind of work. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has given any consideration to the position of these people. There are also other workers who move around in seasonal industries such as the hotel industry, and I understand, also in the sugar industry. These people, because they are not employed in the industry long enough, may just fail to qualify for benefits under this particular Act.

As far as Clause 8 is concerned, the Minister has told us that due to the necessity to conserve space and for economic reasons, a prescriptive period of seven years has now been introduced into the Act. A similar provision appears in Section 12 as far as employers are concerned. We would like to know why this long period of seven years was decided upon, because employers will have the same difficulty as the Minister in keeping records for a period of seven years. A period of three years is provided for in the Industrial Conciliation Act, and similarly in the Factories Act. Why the difference in this particular Act? I think that a period of three years is quite long enough and that in this regard this Act should be brought into line with the other two Acts.

Sir, other hon. members on this side of the House have dealt with the question of extended benefits under Section 10 and they have also drawn attention to the various anomalies under that section. I think those anomalies can be dealt with more fully in the Committee Stage, but we would like the hon. the Minister to give us the background to the amendments to Section 10 of the Act and also reply to the points made by hon. members on this side with regard to the anomalies.

In the first place, I would like to express my appreciation to hon. members for the support which they have given this Bill. I propose to answer the points that have been raised very fully. I think some of those points, however, can be dealt with more appropriately in the Committee Stage. I shall proceed therefore, to deal with certain general observations.

The hon. member for Durban-Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) wants to know how the ceiling of R2,860 has been arrived at. The position is as follows: The employer and the trade union representative on the Unemployment Insurance Board could not see eye to eye with regard to this increase of the ceiling, and the Board thereupon decided to ask the major industrial councils, that is to say, the councils for the engineering, motor, building, furniture and printing industries, whether there were any substantial numbers of employees who earned wages in excess of R2,500 per annum in relation to the rest of the whole of the labour force. They found that only a few councils were able to supply the required information, but from the particulars obtained it appeared that only 1,364 employees earned more than R2,500 per annum whereas 66,179 were earning less than R2,500. The employers’ representatives on the Board accordingly felt that there was no justification for increasing the figure beyond R2,500 and the trade union representatives on the Board agreed by way of compromise to lower their demand from R3,120 to R2,720.

The Board thereupon, on 7 November 1961 recommended that the ceiling be raised from R2,500 to R2,720 per annum. At that time it was not possible to give legislative effect to these proposals because there were no amendments to the Bill in contemplation, but in January 1964 following upon further representations by the various trade unions the Unemployment Insurance Board recommended that the figure be raised to R2,838 per annum. The Board’s recommendation was based on figures supplied by the Bureau of Census and Statistics which had calculated the then equivalent of a wage of R2,500 as at April 1957 to be R2,838. It was agreed, however, that for the sake of convenience the amount should be divisible by 52, since there are 52 weeks in the year, and the figure of R2,860 was finally decided upon. That is how it was arrived at.

I may add that if the ceiling under the Unemployment Insurance Act were to be raised beyond R2,860 per annum there would, without question, as in the case of the 1957 amendment, be a demand for increased benefits for those earning over R2,860 since, the benefit of R14 per week for that group would bear too low a relationship to earnings in comparison with the lower groups, and then consideration would also have to be given to a rearrangement of the groups under the Act, and the addition of at least two new groups with benefit rates higher than R14 per week. This would mean a substantial increase in the expenditure of the Fund. In all the circumstances the figure of R2,860 was considered to be the most practical figure.

The hon. member also referred to the accumulated assets of the Fund and he expressed the view that the genuine work seeker should be treated more sympathetically. The hon. members for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) also supported his view. Sir, I can give this House the assurance that the genuine work seeker has no reason for complaint; that has been our experience. In this connection sight should not be lost of the benefits which are in fact paid in proportion to contributions which workers make towards the Fund. A worker in the lowest wage group contributes one cent per week. On the basis of one week’s benefits for every six weeks’ employment as a contributor, he must in the normal course contribute for a period of 156 weeks in order to draw benefits for a continuous period of 26 weeks: in other words, for a total contribution of only R1.56 he will receive benefits amounting to R63.70 over a period of six months. For a contribution of R1.56 he receives R63.70. That is in the lowest wage group. In the highest wage group the benefit will be R364 in return for contributions amounting to R18.72. The number of years over which a contributor will have to contribute to make up the amount that he receives in benefits over 26 weeks would be 122 and 58 years in the lowest and highest groups respectively. Even if the employer’s and the State’s share of contributions is added—hon. members know that employers make a contribution and that the State makes a contribution—even if those contributions are added to the Fund it will take 49 years and 28 years respectively to make up for the benefits paid out over 26 weeks in the lowest and highest groups respectively.

Sir, from an analysis we have made of the representations received from contributors from time to time it is quite clear that may are under a total misapprehension as far as the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned in that they seem to regard it as a savings or a provident fund from which they can draw money when they have retired or when they are no longer in the labour market. I think that was made quite clear when the amendments of 1962 were passed. If regard is had to the amount expended on the different types of benefits since the introduction of the 1962 amendment, it must be obvious that there has been no drastic curtailment of the rights which genuine work seekers enjoy under the Act. Let me give a few figures which I think will illustrate the points I have made. First of all, I take ordinary benefits. The total amount of benefits under the amendment of 1962 decreased from R9,561,000 in 1961 to approximately R3,500,000 in 1964. This was not only due to the elimination of the chronic unemployed by the 1962 amendment but also to a large extent to a substantial decrease in unemployment. In December 1961 the unemployment figure stood at 31,169 as against 9,615 as at the end of December 1964, a very vast decrease. So far I have been talking about ordinary benefits; I now come to other benefits. The expenditure on other benefits for the corresponding years was as follows: 1961, illness allowances, R3,313,195; in 1964, R2,884,000; maternity benefits in 1961, R2,575,747; in 1964, R2,591,000, almost the same.

Less.

No, a little more in 1964. Death payments in 1961, amounted to R637J20 as against R781,000 in 1964. The total in 1961 was R6,526,662 and in 1964 R6,256,000. So the total was less in 1964. An improvement in the unemployment position does not, of course, have the same effect on these benefits as in the case of ordinary benefits, for the simple reason that cases of illness, confinement and death continue at more or less the same rates and may even result in an increase in the amount of allowances or benefits due to an increase in the number of contributors. The above figures accordingly show a slight increase in death and maternity benefits. As far as illness allowances are concerned, there was a decrease of approximately R450,000 in 1964, compared with 1961. This decrease was no doubt due in some measure to the restrictions imposed in 1962 but, as was pointed out when the amendments to the Act were introduced, the Fund was not designed to provide a source of income to chronically sick persons. Where considered justified, however, extended benefits or illness allowances have been granted by the Unemployment Insurance Board so as to cover a full period of one year. Thereafter ordinary benefits are not payable until a contributor has again worked for a period of 13 weeks and illness allowances are not payable until he has worked as a contributor for a period of at least 13 weeks.

We find, therefore, that despite a position of full employment, the income of the Fund derived from contributions by employers, employees and the State, is not as yet sufficient to meet the expenditure on all the different benefits under the Act. Income and expenditure on this basis for the last two years have been as follows: In 1963 the income was R7,578,862 and the expenditure R10,827,704. In 1964—this is an estimate; we do not have the actual figures yet—the income was R8,393,000 and the expenditure R8,955,000. Hon. members will see that the expenditure still exceeded income in 1964 despite the amendments of 1962. I think it is gratifying to be able to report that the position with regard to total income, including interest on our investments, and total expenditure, including administrative expenses, has improved during the last two years. The financial statements for 1963 show, for the first time since 1958 an excess of income over expenditure, and it was not necessary to realize any of our investments in order to meet the shortfall.

On the basis of total income and expenditure the position was therefore as follows: In 1963, the income was R12,465,066 and the expenditure R11,992,860, which shows a surplus of R472,206. That was in 1963. Now I come to 1964 and again this is an estimate: Income, R13,441,000 and expenditure R 10,656,000, a surplus of R2,785,000, which is quite a considerable improvement. I think this improvement can be attributed to the following factors: (a) The re-admission to the Fund of workers previously excluded on the ground of their membership of other funds; (b) an increase in the number of contributors; (c) the overall improvement in the unemployment position and (d) the effects of the 1962 amendments to the Act, especially with regard to ordinary unemployment benefits. The assets of the Fund as at 31 December 1964 amounted to plus-minus R122,877,000. The hon. member for Umbilo wanted to know what additional income would be derived from the proposed new ceiling of R2,860 and my reply is that it is estimated that the contributions from employers and employees will be in the neighbourhood of R400,000, and to this amount the State would have to add R 100,000 in terms of Section 32 (2) of the Act. The hon. members for Umbilo and Wynberg raised the question of an increase in the ceiling laid down in the Act in respect of Bantu workers. I think their suggestion is based on completely wrong premises. They seem to be under a misapprehension as to the terms of the Act. In terms of Section 2 of the original Act of 1946 it is specifically laid down under the definition of “contributor” that the following persons shall not for the purposes of this Act be regarded as contributors, and there are sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d); (d) is the one to which I want to refer. I think it is quite clear that hon. members have not read this section; (d) refers to persons who are excluded from the provisions of the Act—

That is in the case of Europeans—

In terms of the Act therefore Bantu workers earning more than R546 per annum are included in the Fund, and if this figure is to be increased it can only result in the exclusion of certain Bantu workmen, which I am sure is not the purpose of the request made by the hon. member. In other words, it is quite a simple point, in respect of the Europeans a maximum ceiling is laid down and in respect of the Bantu a minimum ceiling. So that Obviously hon. members can see that as the Bill stands Bantu workers earning above R546 p.a. will still be covered by the Act. I think hon. members had a misconception of the position of the Bantu worker under the Act.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) suggested that the proposed provisions relating to radiographers should be extended to include typists and receptionists working for the medical profession because such employees may on occasion come into contact with ionizing radiation. I do not think he was really very serious, Sir, because that would be stretching the matter a little too far. If we conceded that point we would probably have to bring in the doctor’s patients as well because they are the people who are directly exposed to radiation. I think we must limit it to radiographers whose sole job it is to manipulate the machine which causes radiation.

The hon. member also wanted to know if a special concession could be made in respect of pregnant radiographers who perforce have to leave their employment earlier than other contributors. He wanted to know why the same facility could not be extended to those others. I think I should explain that it is the accepted principle both under the Factories Act and the Shops and Offices Act that a female must necessarily have had 18 weeks’ employment before she qualifies for a maternity allowance. I cannot depart from the principle as a matter of routine because it is most unlikely that the average female is obliged to give up her employment during the first two weeks of her pregnancy. As a matter of fact both the Factories Act and the Shops and Offices Act permit a pregnant woman being employed up to four weeks before her expected confinement. In the case of radiographers, of course, the position is totally different because of the dangers to which they are exposed right at the commencement of their pregnancy.

I now come to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Rosettenville that a medical practitioner should have a seat on the board to act as a sort of referee. It must not be forgotten that the Unemployment Insurance Board is constituted under Section 12 of the Act, in terms of which one half of the members represent the interests of contributors and the other half the interests of the employers; the very people who contribute to the fund. They look upon it as their fund and closely guard their own interests, as they are entitled to do, in the light of documentary evidence placed before them in the form of proper proof and evidence that a person has unsuccessfully looked for work, or in the form of a medical certificate issued by a registered medical practitioner, in a case of illness. I think the hon. member’s suggestion would cut right across the whole machinery of the Act. There is no evidence that the board has at any time acted unreasonably. I do not think there is any real reason for the proposed alteration.

Lastly I want to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) about he unanimity of the board in deciding not to relax the 1962 restrictions. In this connection I want to quote from a report I have received from the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner—

It took into account the purpose for which the restrictions were imposed and particularly the fact that Section 39 (3) of the Act gave the board the power to grant further benefits or further illness allowances—the board has a discretion in this regard—to contributors who were still unemployed after having received benefits for 26 weeks. Although the board is not limited by the Act in regard to the period in respect of which it may grant such further benefits or illness allowances it has up to now followed the policy of limiting such payments to a maximum of a further 26 weeks. The board has that discretion and as hon. members will have seen provision is now being made in this Bill for representations to go direct to the board.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) asked whether the Unemployment Insurance Fund was actuarially examined. The reply is “yes”. It is examined actuarially from time to time. The hon. member also raised the question of the difficulty connected with seasonal workers coming from the Eastern Transvaal to work in the Deciduous Fruit Industry in the Cape. That matter was fully considered by the Unemployment Insurance Board and notwithstanding the evidence placed before them and representations made they found that, in practice, it would be quite impossible. There are very few cases of that sort. The board found they were unable to alter the view they held namely that eight months should be the period. The hon. member also asked why the period of prescription should be seven years; why it could not be less, say, three years. As I explained in my second-reading speech this figure of seven years was arrived at after consultation with the Controller and Auditor-General. They took all the factors into consideration and decided that seven years was a reasonable period.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The proposed amendment to the Act does not affect its basic provisions and is intended primarily to bring it into line with the organization of the Bureau as it has developed since it became independent in October 1962.

Up to 1962 the Bureau of Statistics was a Division of the Department of the Interior. In October of that year, autonomy was granted to the Bureau and the Director became directly responsible to the Minister.

When the Bureau became independent the then designation of “Director of Census and Statistics” was amended administratively to “Director of Statistics” and this Bill now confirms the amended designation. At the same time the designation of “Assistant Director of Census” is being amended to “Deputy Director of Statistics” to bring it into line with the present designation of the two deputy directors (administrative) and (technical). In practice the position with reference to the latter officials is that the duties of the previous Assistant director of Census, apart from additional responsibilities arising from the acquisition of autonomy, were entrusted to them in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act.

Apart from the amendment of the designation of “Governor-general” to “State President”, “Director of Census” to “Director of Statistics”, and “Assistant Director of Census” to “Deputy Director of Statistics”, the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill are the same as the provisions of Section 3 of the principal Act.

In gathering data during a census it sometimes happens that persons fail to comply with the requirements. For such contraventions persons may be sentenced to a fine of £10 or one month’s imprisonment in terms of census regulations promulgated in terms of Section 7 of the existing Act. These penalties are now being increased in Clause 4 of this Bill to a fine of R50 or three months’ imprisonment, which is regarded as a suitable deterrent, which Clause 6 proposes to bring about a similar increase in Section 15 of the principal Act where no penalty is prescribed for a specific contravention or act of omission. These amendments are necessary to bring the Act into line with Section 26 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1959, which provided for a minimum penalty of a fine of R50 or three months’ imprisonment for offences of this kind. This Bill therefore merely brings the position into line with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1959.

When a census is taken, controllers and/or enumerators are appointed by the Director in all districts to do the work; they have to post all forms and other documents that they collect to the Director of Statistics in Pretoria. These documents are official documents, and in order to put the matter beyond any doubt provision is now being made in the principal Act for the transmission of these documents as official documents. The only amendment which is being brought about here is to substitute the word “official” for the words “in service of Her Majesty”.

Clause 8 of the Bill substitutes the terms “State President” and “Republic” for the terms “Governor-General” and “Union” respectively. Clause 9 provides that any reference in the Act to “Director of Census” shall be construed as a reference to the Director of Statistics. This amendment brings the legal position into line with the factual position.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been through the Other Place. They have passed it and we find no reason to alter their decision. We have been through it closely and approve of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill which seeks to amend the Statistics Act, No. 73 of 1957, is to make certain adjustments to the principal Act, adjustments which flow from experience gained by the Bureau of Statistics in the collection of statistics during the past eight years and from internal organizational developments since the Bureau became independent in 1962. No amendment involving matters of principle are contemplated here.

The basic section of the Act is Section 2 which sets out the matters in regard to which statistics may be collected. These matters relate to economic and social aspects of the Republic’s activities.

Since the Statistics Act came into operation in 1957 new developments have taken place, particularly in the economic activities of the country, necessitating more elaborate arrangements for the collection of statistics. In order to bring the Act into line with the present practical circumstances, therefore, it has become necessary to amend the authorization provided for in Section 2 of the Act, and this is being done by means of a broader and clearer definition of the matters in regard to which statistics may be collected. This also applies to social matters. A comparison of the provisions of the existing Section 2 of the Act with the provisions of the proposed new section contained in Clause 2 of the Bill, shows that more extensive statistics may be collected in respect of population, primary production (particularly agriculture and farming and mining activities), secondary production, construction work, internal and external trade, services, particularly banking, financing, insurance, transport communications, personal and professional services, associations, prices, rentals, national finance and accounts, labour, public administrative, financial industrial, and commercial activities of the Government, Provincial Administrations and local authorities, accidents, religious and welfare organizations, households and families.

Under the existing legislation, according to legal opinion, the collection of financial statistics in respect of the matters referred to is not permissible. In view of the fact that such statistics constitute an important aspect of the national economy, Clause 2 of the Bill provides for a new Section 2 (1)bis to be added to the Act to make it possible for the Bureau to collect financial statistics.

In practice the Director of Statistics collects statistics in terms of the provisions of the Act by way of questionnaires to the bodies concerned. Such forms are drawn up after consultation with the representative organizations concerned and the contents of these forms are continually amended in the light of new developments which may take place or depending upon the nature of the statistics to be collected.

In terms of the existing legislation, according to legal opinion, these questionnaires must be incorporated in toto in the regulations dealing with the various matters, and this often results in a clumsy and time-consuming administrative procedure when the forms have to be amended.

The proposed Bill provides in Clause 1 (d) that these forms do not necessarily have to be prescribed forms; in other words, that they may be amended administratively without necessarily re-publishing them in the Government Gazette in terms of the regulations.

Another important improvement is the proposed amendment to Section 4 of the Act (Clause 4 of the Bill) which gives the Minister of Planning the power to enter into agreements with the Administrator of South West Africa or the Government of any other neighbouring territory as to any matter necessary or convenient for the purpose of carrying out the Statistics Act effectually. The collection of statistics in this way will be to our mutual advantage and will be of importance particularly in respect of South West Africa.

Under the present arrangements, information which is collected by the Director of Statistics is confidential and may not be disclosed. Such information may sometimes be of great value to bodies other than the Bureau, and for that reason it is proposed in Clause 7 of the Bill that Section 9 of the Act be amended so that the information may be made public with the written permission of the persons who furnish the information.

The Bill also makes provision for “State President” to be substituted for “Governor-General”, for “Minister of Planning” to be substituted for “Minister of the Interior”, and for “Director of Statistics” to be substituted for “Director of Census”, and it also contains one or two minor amendments.

The previous name of the Bureau, namely “Bureau of Census and Statistics” was altered in 1962 to “Bureau of Statistics”.

Statistics are always very important and even more so in a growing economy. Clause 2 of this Bill spreads considerably the items on which statistics may be collected and can, of course, be extended if the Minister finds it necessary. This Bill has been passed by the Other Place but I would remind the hon. the Minister that certain farming members there raised certain difficulties in connection with duplication of work. They complained that they had to provide certain statistics in February for income tax purposes and the same statistics later in August. That will be gone in more fully by another member on this side of the House. I understand the hon. the Minister promised in the Other Place to go into this matter.

I must express the hope that if this Bill is necessary, and it seems to be necessary, it will have the effect of expediting the publication of the statistics which are so useful in this country to-day and also that very close attention will be paid to the secrecy provisions of the Bill. We will support it.

As the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has said we will support this Bill but I would draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to Clause 2 which covers a very wide field. The Minister knows that if he is going to be successful in his new office as Minister of Planning it is essential that he has reliable statistics. If the Minister is going to get reliable statistics, and get them timeously, I think it is essential that he gets the co-operation of all those who are charged with furnishing the necessary statistics. As the Minister knows many sections of commerce and industry have mechanical aids, such as computers, calculating machines, bookkeeping machines and so on, for the purpose of sorting statistics under appropriate heads. Nothing is more annoying to any industrial or commercial house than to get a form at the end of the year and be required to fill in that form within a period of 30 to 60 days particularly when they find that they have to traverse numerous figures which have been collected under another form. I suggest that the time has arrived, if the Minister wants to achieve the objects set out in Clause 2, for the Minister’s Department of Statistics to give advance notice of the form it proposes to use for the following year. That will give the persons concerned the opportunity of so arranging their figures that at the end of the year when they get their form they will be able to supply the information quickly and with the minimum of manpower hours. The Minister knows there is a shortage of manpower to-day. I am afraid the information which is sometimes put on the statistical forms required by the Department is not nearly as accurate as it should be because short-cuts have to be taken at the end of the year in order to collate the information within the period of time required by the Minister’s Department. If the Minister would accept this advice, give commerce and industry timeous notice and, as far as possible, arrange the period to coincide with the fiscal year of the company concerned, he would get more accurate figures; he would get them within the required time and the statistics which would eventually be available from his Department would have the confidence of commerce and industry in that they would be more accurate. In that way the Department would be fulfilling its purpose. I trust the hon. the Minister will accept this advice and ensure that forms are given very careful consideration before they are framed. When the forms are submitted and criticism follows I trust the Minister will give careful consideration to such criticism. By so doing he will be able to get more reliable statistics. He will be able to save manpower both in his Department, in commerce and industry and in the farming industry. That will ensure that the objective of this Act is properly fulfilled.

The hon. the Minister indicated in his opening remarks that the intention of some of the amendments was to improve the collection of statistics. I would like to deal with the matter from another angle in relation to the publication of statistics. I notice that Section 8 (2) of the Act says—

I would like to ask the Minister if he could give some indication as to his intentions in regard to the publication of the South African Year Book. As far as I am aware the last Year Book was dated 1960. It was published in 1960 or thereabouts. That was Year Book No. 30. Since then we have had no further publication. The South African Year Book has been made available year after year. I believe it could be regarded as the poor man’s encyclopedia of South Africa. I believe it is a very valuable publication, one which should be in every school in the Republic and one which could well be in every home. I go further and say it is such a useful, informative and accurate collation of the statistics of South Africa that it could well be made available to all notable visitors to the Republic so as to give them in concise form the actual facts of South Africa.

I am aware that the Statistical Year Book of 1964 was published recently and that it sells at R3.30. It has been made available to members of this House. It is no doubt a very useful publication purely from the statistical point of view. I personally have found it of great value and interest. But such a publication neglects many of the chapters which have been dealt with in the past in the Year Book as we know it. I am thinking of instructive items like the chapter on notable events published at the beginning of the Year Book, chapters on history, central Government, Provincial government, municipal government, details regarding the electorate and facts like that. It occurs to me that the average man in the street, if he wishes to refer to facts of that nature, might have a little difficulty in finding them if he were not able to make use of this Year Book. He might even find that it is necessary to consult a reference library and that is not always convenient or possible in some parts of South Africa. So I feel that the continuation of the publication of the Year Book in the form in which we have come to know it, is a matter of interest to the people of South Africa and I trust the Minister will give some indication of his intentions in that regard.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has touched on the matter of farmers, the majority of them in any case, having to make up their income-tax returns in February, and again in July and August having to supply other statistics to the department for the agricultural census. It appears from this Bill that perhaps even more information may be required particularly under Clause 2 (1)bis which provides for the collection of additional financial statistics from farmers. We realize the necessity for this and I think we all realize the very great part that statistics can play in assisting to plan the economic development of the country.

Farmers are being burdened with an increasing amount of paper work. Besides the income-tax form and the agricultural census form which is quite a voluminous document containing a great variety of questions, there is other paper work such as workmen’s compensation, P.A.Y.E. and so forth. I am not suggesting that this is peculiar to the farming community because I know that businessmen in any sphere of life also have to fill in similar forms. But farmers do suffer under a certain disability in this matter in that, unlike their brother businessmen in the towns, they usually have not got clerical staff at their disposal to assist them with the rendering of returns. When I talk of clerical staff I am thinking particularly of the fact that the urban businessman usually has a secretary. In the great majority of instances it is a female secretary and in some instances an attractive female secretary; also perhaps an attractive female secretary whose only direct connection with statistics …

Order! That is not under discussion.

I am dealing with vital statistics, Mr. Speaker. I would not ask the Minister to give attention to that aspect of the matter but I do feel that if he could assist the farming community in this regard by making it possible for them to complete their agricultural census at the same time as the great majority of them complete their income-tax returns, he would be rendering the farming community great assistance in a very practical way. I realize that not all farmers complete their income-tax returns on 28 February. I know that some do it on 30 June and some even on other dates. The people whose financial year does not end on 28 February are a dying breed under the provisions of the P.A.Y.E. Act and more and more will in future have to complete the forms by the end of February. I am certain that if the hon. Minister were to give attention to this and could meet the farmers in this matter, not merely would he assist them but the agricultural census statistics would also be forthcoming rather more quickly than they are at the moment.

I want to express my appreciation of the support given to this amending measure. I am glad that we are agreed about the necessity of statistics and that they should be made available quickly. Recently I read the following: “Statistics are the tools of the business executives, the administrators and social scientists, and no business or community can be managed or governed or studied without figures and facts, facts about numbers and quantities.” We therefore agree that they are essential, and I might just say that at present we try to cooperate as closely as possible as far as the preparation of the forms is concerned. Instructions were issued last year already that no new form was to be sent out without first being submitted to the organized bodies and without meeting with their approval. As far as the distribution of statistics is concerned, we will try to co-operate with these bodies as far as possible. I also hope that the realization of the importance of statistics will result in these forms being completed more readily. One of the major problems of the bureau is to get back the statistical forms, because there are many people who simply keep the forms and who are not interested in them. The result of this delay is that we are unable to break down the statistics quickly. The bureau has now also acquired an electronic computer, which will mean that it will be possible to break down and to make available the statistics and data more quickly.

Various suggestions have been made here, inter alia, that forms should be circulated in advance so that firms will know before the time in what form they have to have the information and so that the data can be broken down in good time. This suggestion was made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and we will definitely submit it to the Director. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) referred to the publication of the Year Book. The Year Book of Statistics that has just appeared was signed in August; it was then prepared for publication; it appeared in December, and the necessary authority to issue it has recently been obtained from the Treasury. Hon. members received this book recently. The statistics it contains virtually cover the period up to the end of 1963. In this regard therefore I think we have made some progress in that the Year Book has been published at an earlier date than in the past. In addition to this there are also the monthly bulletins, as well as the other bulletins which appear from time to time and which cover a very wide field. In my opinion the position as regards the furnishing of data collected is also better than it was some years ago. As far as the Year Book is concerned, I am told that it is being prepared at the moment and I hope that it will also be ready soon.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) spoke about data relating to agriculture and asked whether the period in respect of which information has to be furnished cannot be made to coincide with the tax year. This matter was put to me by members of the Opposition in the Other Place and I have referred this recommendation to the Director of Statistics for comment but unfortunately I have not yet received his reply. If it is at all possible to do so it will be done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Atomic Energy Board’s nuclear reactor, Safari I, will, it is hoped, shortly come into operation or, as the scientists put it, reach “criticality”.

The board undertakes its research work according to five-year programmes. The first five-year programme, during which the expensive task was undertaken of erecting the National Nuclear Research Centre at Pelindaba and to recruit and train the necessary personnel, was successfully completed during 1964 on a total research budget of approximately R8,000,000.

For the second five-year plan of the research programme an amount of approximately R 15,000,000 will be required. The State makes available more than half of these funds for research, the uranium industry more than a quarter and Escom the major portion of the balance, and I once again want to take this opportunity to thank the bodies concerned for the comprehensive financial and other support received from them.

As the activities of the board progress, it is necessary to adapt the Atomic Energy Act, 1948, and related legislation in order to keep pace with the developments and also to amend provisions the application of which has in practice proved to be difficult or impossible. This Bill envisages a few such adaptations or amendments which I shall now explain briefly.

Clause 1: Section 3 (2) of the Atomic Energy Act, No. 35 of 1948, originally provided that authorization to search for prescribed material or to dispose of it or to process it etc., or to produce radio-active isotopes, to be in possession of them or to transport them, may be granted subject to conditions which may be determined by the Minister or the Atomic Energy Board.

Later it was regarded as being more convenient to prescribe standard conditions by way of regulation, and the sub-section was amended accordingly. It has, however, since been found that some of these authorizations must be made subject to conditions which cannot conveniently be prescribed by way of regulation. Many of these conditions are of a financial nature and vary from case to case, and it is accordingly now again provided that such conditions may be prescribed by the Minister or the board, as the position was originally. That gives the necessary flexibility, with the result that further amendments of this sub-section will probably not be necessary again in future.

Clause 2 (a): The reference, in the English text, to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (he is ex officio a member of the Atomic Energy Board) is being changed from “Secretary for External Affairs” to “Secretary for Foreign Affairs”, in accordance with the recent change in the English name of that post.

Clause 2 (b): This sub-section refers to the alternates of members of the Atomic Energy Board. In terms of Section 12 of the Atomic Energy Act, the members of the Atomic Energy Board mainly consist of the following three groups—

1. (a) The Secretary for Mines and the Secretary for Foreign Affairs;
2. (b) Persons representing organizations like the C.S.I.R. and Escom; and
3. (c) the so-called “independent” members representing the uranium industry (two members), commerce, industry and specialized aspects of the board’s functions.

In terms of the present Section 12 (4) every member has the right, subject to confirmation by the Minister, to nominate an alternate at any meeting of the board. Because the affairs of the board are, however, mainly confidential and it is therefore desirable to limit the number of persons having knowledge of them, it is considered advisable that the independent members (the representatives of the industry, etc.) should not have the right to nominate alternates but that, wherever necessary, the Minister himself should nominate the alternates. For this reason it is considered desirable that the alternates of the representatives of the uranium industry should be exchangeable. The proposed Clause 2 (b) gives effect to these views.

Clause 3: Although Section 13 of the Atomic Energy Act grants wide powers to the board and enables it, inter aia, to undertake the production of atomic energy, the board is not expressly authorized to produce radioactive isotopes. As I said in the beginning, the board’s reactor, Safari I, will come into operation within a short time—we hope to have the official opening during August this year—and the board will then be able to produce radioactive isotopes, particularly those with a short halving time for use in the medical profession and in industry, which cannot be imported. This is one of the proposed activities of the board which was approved in principle by the Cabinet in 1958 already, and the necessary provision is now being made in the Act.

Clauses 4 and 5 can conveniently be explained together. Section 25 (1) of the Atomic Energy Act provides that all patent rights in respect of inventions by the board’s officials, or by people to whom grants have been made by it, vest in the board for the benefit of the State. A similar provision is contained in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Act, No. 32 of 1962, but the last-mentioned Act provides for greater flexibility by allowing of it that where the C.S.I.R. in terms of an agreement undertakes research on behalf of other bodies, the question of patent rights may under certain circumstances be regulated in the relevant agreements. Such a provision is, however, lacking in the Atomic Energy Act and that is definitely a defect, not only in regard to research done by the board on behalf of other bodies, but also in respect of research which the board may cause to be conducted by universities and industrial organizations, etc., because in this respect the board also acts as a co-ordinating body. It is essential for the progress of the board’s development programme to promote close cooperation with the industry, and the power it is now being granted to institute special investigations by way of agreement, or to have them instituted with a view to making discoveries and inventions, and particularly in regard to the question of patent rights to be able to negotiate and to contract, will considerably assist such smooth co-operation.

Section 28 of the Atomic Energy Act prescribes what information in the sphere of atomic energy and related matters should be kept secret. It comprises mainly information concerning reserve supplies of material, annual yields and prices, and also information in regard to research, discoveries or inventions relating to the processing for use of prescribed material or the production of atomic energy. The Board’s activities, particularly in the sphere of research have however, expanded appreciably, and secrecy is essential, particularly until patent rights have been obtained. Then also prescribed material is supplied to buyers who wish to have secrecy about themselves and the amount of material purchased by them. In addition, confidential information, which is at present not covered by Section 28, may reach the wrong ears. Section 28 is therefore being extended to fill these gaps, but because it is realized that the scope of the section, as now proposed, is considerable, and to prevent persons from being prosecuted for minor matters, it is provided in the proposed new Section 28 (4) that no trial or preparatory examination may be instituted in respect of an offence committed in terms of this section without the written authorization of the Attorney-General.

Clause 7 contains a consequential amendment which was unfortunately not made when Section 19 of the Atomic Energy Act was amended by Section 5 of Act No. 44 of 1961. It is merely a correction of cross-references in Section 29 to certain sub-sections in Section 19 of the Act, which deals with the procedure in connection with applications for patents.

I now come to Clause 8. In terms of the proposed Section 25 (1) of the Act (Clause 4 of the Bill), the Atomic Energy Board may make available discoveries, inventions and improvements for use in the public interest subject to the conditions and against payment of the fees or royalties determined by the Board in accordance with the regulations. Section 31 is therefore being amended to provide for the promulgation of such regulations. (The existing Section 31 (c) becomes unnecessary as the result of the proposed amendment of Section 3 (2)—Clause 1—and is therefore being omitted.)

Clause 9: The penalties for contraventions of the various provisions of the atomic Energy Act are prescribed in Section 33 of the Act, and the proposed Section 33bis is being inserted in order to facilitate the determination of the legal capacity of a court to try these misdemeanours.

Then there are Clauses 10 and 12: In terms of the existing Section 34 of the Atomic Energy Act, that Act also applies to the territory of South West Africa, and that is also the position in regard to the Atomic Energy and Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963. The application of the first-mentioned Act to the aforementioned Act is now provided for in terms of the proposed new Section 34 by means of the wording in current use, while Clause 12 ensures that the new provisions now being proposed will also be applicable to that territory.

Clause 11: Section 5 (1) of the Atomic Energy and Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963, places liability for atomic damages on the licensee of a nuclear terrain and Section 5 (2) provides that, with certain exceptions, nobody other than the licensee concerned will be held liable for atomic damage. The exceptions are mentioned in sub-sec. (3) and in terms of it a licensee (such as, for example the Atomic Energy Board) will not be held liable as against somebody, such as, e.g. a saboteur, who is a trespasser on that terrain.

Due to a misunderstanding, a further subsection (sub-section (4)) was, however, inserted in the section at the time, which provides that if the licensee is not responsible in terms of sub-section (1) as the result of the provisions of sub-section (3), then the provisions of sub-section (2) do not apply. In other words, if the licensee is not responsible vis-à-vis a trespasser, then the provisions of subsection (2), which say that nobody else is liable, fall away. It means that if the Board, as the licensee, is not liable vis-à-vis a trespasser, a member of the personnel of the Board, who was perhaps negligent, might be held liable vis-à-vis an injured trespasser, and that was not the intention. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act is therefore deleted, and the necessary consequential amendments in the reference to that sub-section in sub-section (2) are being made.

These are briefly the principles concerned in these proposed amendments, which I trust will be acceptable to the House.

We on this side of the House have supported previous measures dealing with this subject and will support this measure. It is quite clear that this fortunate country of ours is a very important country so far as atomic power and materials which are used in the creation of atomic power are concerned. It is clear that atomic power is of great importance to this country and it is right not only that we should develop the resources which we have, but it is also right that we should use those resources ourselves to the full as well as making these materials available to other countries in the world. We know that we have been an important source. Unfortunately, in respect of atomic power, as the hon. Minister has mentioned and as has been laid down in the legislation, in the dangerous world in which we live, there is a need for secrecy and Obviously we support provisions which ensure secrecy wherever they are necessary in the national interest. I would like to express the hope that this will not in any way stop development. I think it is known that South Africa is playing a very important part in this field in research and in other respects. It is my belief that in the years ahead we are going to play an increasingly important part, and I believe that atomic power in turn will play an increasingly important part in the development of our country, We support the measures which have been taken in respect of research. I wonder whether we are doing everything we can in that regard? I think we will be hearing very shortly from the Minister of Finance that he has again a great surplus, and one wonders whether that does not afford an opportunity for speeding up South Africa’s efforts in respect of this very important field. Of course this Bill is very important because it is providing various additional safeguards. I must say that to me as a lawyer a clause looks strange when it provides that it will be an offence for a person to receive information if he knows that it is in breach of the provisions of the law, but I am afraid that in the circumstances of this case it is necessary that we should have a provision of that sort. The hon. Minister has referred to the training of personnel. He has mentioned that a further sum of R15,000,000 will be required. Sir, I think it is the duty of this country to ensure that whatever funds are required are made available in order for us to make the greatest possible contribution in this field. Many of the provisions which are contained in this Bill can be discussed at a later stage. I would like to express my general agreement with the provisions, although certain points will be raised as we proceed, and in order that the hon. Minister may give the matter some thought I refer him to Clause 5. In that clause there is a provision “for the use of a discovery, invention or improvement in the public interest, subject to such conditions as may be provided by the agreement”. I am wondering whether it is not necessary to have further provisions. What for instance is the case if there is no provision in an agreement? In other words, it seems to me that the legislation here is relying on the fact that there will be provisions in the agreement. Humans are fallible and I wonder if there should not be some residual power which will ensure that the objects of this clause should be given effect to.

The hon. Minister has referred to the correction of certain errors. I do not want to deal with those, but we did agree when this legislation was before us that this is a case where there should be absolute liability. I think that is very important and at a later stage we will go into some detail in respect of this matter with the hon. Minister. I think it is vital that we should ensure that where we are carrying out experiments in this dangerous field (and it is a dangerous field), not only that all possible precautions should be taken (I know that precautions are being taken at every possible point), but also that we should ensure that there is no possibility of persons who are damaged in the course of the development of our atomic energy and power and the continuance of the experiments which take place, not being fully compensated. Innocent persons should be fully compensated. I think most of those matters can better be pursued in detail when we reach the Committee Stage. I would like to express my deep regret that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) is not present. As the hon. Minister knows she is the mother of a son who is a very distinguished person in this particular field, and she herself has made a very particular study of it, and I do express the hope that it may be possible for her to be present during the further stages of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that the nuclear reactor which is now about to go into operation, at least in the near future, has been called “Safari”. Well, Sir, I am hoping that we will not go on safari with our development and our interest in nuclear physics in this country, because I feel it would be more appropriate to call it “Blitzem” now, and get cracking on what is urgently needed in South Africa.

In recent years overseas, such substantial advances have been made in the economic production of electric power from nuclear fuels, that I think we really have to become aware of a possible danger to our coalfields in this country. It is possible that with the development of nuclear energy by means of our reactors, we may be in a position to supply power by this means at a cheaper rate than we are doing now by means of coal. But the legislation that we have had up to now has, as the Minister said, been of an experimental and exploratory nature, and the Bill before us will really plug the loopholes of certain defects which have become apparent as the result of experience in this particular field.

I am particularly pleased that provision is now being made for an inducement to individuals and industrialists to make contributions to research and development, and the fact that they will now be able to derive financial benefits in the form of royalties and fees as a result of a discovery that they may make, or information that they are able to pass on to our team of scientists.

We in South Africa must be particularly grateful for any encouragement given in this field, because we have available to us one of the finest natural assets that one can have anywhere in the world in this regard, and that is our uranium industry. This particular industry in recent years has had a number of set-backs and at one time it did appear as if a mood of pessimism in that regard had come over the country. I think it will be interesting to this House and the country, Sir, if the hon. the Minister can give an indication of the future he foresees for the uranium industry in relation to our nuclear development in this country. Also if consideration is being given by our team of scientists and research workers to a more fruitful use being made of by-products in this particular field. The hon. member for Germiston (District) has rightly sounded a note of warning that perhaps the amount of R15,000,000—spread over the next five years— may not be sufficient provision for research in this field. When one remembers the thousands of millions of Rand which are being made available in America and in England for research in this field, I do believe that the time has come when we have to think on a bigger scale than R 15,000,000, spread over the second half of our five-year programme. I wonder if the hon. the Minister can enlighten the House as to whether there is any intention to use any of the money put aside last year under the Strategic Mineral Resources Bill for additional funds for nuclear research?

Just a few months ago one was rather surprised at a newspaper report of a broadcast from Egypt that South Africa was developing this nuclear installation with the object of making an atomic bomb. I think that in order to break down the criticism that is so unjustifiably levelled at this country, the Minister may take this opportunity to refute that particular allegation, and to make it clear that all our efforts in this regard are directed towards peaceful activities, and that we are not embarking on any warlike measures in this regard. The Minister has correctly drawn the attention of the country to the need for research in this field, but it also becomes necessary for the Minister to let our promising scientists become aware of what scope there is for them in this particular field of nuclear physics. One is very concerned about the drain on brains which is going on in the scientific field. Unless the Minister and his Department can, at this early stage, make it known to our promising young scientists what their scope is in nuclear physics in this country, I am afraid that this drain of scientists overseas may continue. We have to do something about it, and do it urgently. We certainly cannot do it “on Safari.” We have to do it with sputniks and we have to keep our people here.

One must refer to the enormous benefits that this particular development in the sphere of science can make available to our country. I am wondering whether the hon. the Minister and his Department have given consideration to extending an invitation to those countries to the north of us who have attained their independence, and to make it known to them that we would be prepared to share our research and our knowledge with them for peaceful purposes, medicinal and industrial, which, I believe, will make it possible for us to make a breakthrough to them in a field of activity which it will be impossible for them to enter for many years to come.

The question was recently brought prominently to my notice as to what precautions we are taking in this country in regard to nuclear activities, when it was said that any of the nuclear ships would, because of lack of adequate precautions, be prevented from coming into Cape Town Harbour if it so wished. I wonder whether the Minister can indicate to the House what steps have been taken in that regard to make it possible in the near future, with the rapid development of nuclear ships, for such ships to enter our South African ports.

Lastly, could the Minister dispel a very worrying thought in the minds of people on the Reef, and particularly in Pretoria, because of the closeness of the nuclear reactor station to Pretoria? When one bears in mind the considerable distance at which these stations are placed in America, away from the densely populated urban areas, the question arises whether it was necessary or advisable for this particular nuclear station to be located so close to one of our largest and most rapidly developing cities. In conjunction with that fear, there is the question of what steps and precautions our research workers are taking against waste products resulting from the production of radioactive isotopes. It is not only the actual production of those isotopes, but also the fact that these isotopes and nuclear material are carried to and from the station in the form of exports to other parts of the world. I think it would be wise, without the Minister disclosing any particular confidential information in this regard, to give an indication to the House as to what precautions are being taken and will be taken in future at this nuclear station against any waste products, either liquid or metal.

The Bill, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said, carries our blessing. We are very hopeful that this will result in rapid development in research in South Africa in this particular field. There are two aspects of the Bill, however, on which I would like some enlightenment from the Minister. Clause 6 deals with the disclosure of uranium ore in regard to the reserves of ores containing any prescribed material. That is the wording of the clause. As I read it, I imagine that it can have a restrictive effect on mining companies in making disclosures of gold bearing ores in their annual reports. It would be most unfortunate, if the wording of this clause had that effect, because it would not enable shareholders to form a correct impression or opinion as to the various departments in which these mining companies are making their profits. I am wondering whether the Minister can give us some information in that regard.

Also in Clause 5 there seems to be some conflict in the wording of the special investigation by arrangement with any person with a view to discoveries, inventions, etc.—where it deals with the Board it says that the Board “may make” such discoveries available to the public: but where it deals in sub-clause (A) with the rights available to an individual, it says that he “shall make” those rights available to the public. Is it the Minister’s intention that, in the one case when the discovery is made by the Board, they will have a discretion as to whether they may make it available to the public; but where it deals with an individual, it becomes obligatory and he shall make that discovery available to the public? If that is so, I would, with respect, suggest that it is an unfair distinction to draw between an individual making a discovery in nuclear physics, and the Board.

I was pleased to hear from the Minister that Escom was also making a substantial amount available in the form of a donation for research. One is coming to realize the very important role that Escom is now going to play in the field of nuclear physics. The development of our atomic energy plant can lead to very far-reaching plans which will provide for South Africa’s water and power needs for the next 30 years, culminating, I foresee, in a system of giant nuclear power stations. It has been estimated, I understand, that with the country’s rapidly expanding economy the demand for electric power will increase five-fold by the end of this century. As we all know, cheap electric power is the key to continued rapid economic growth. But I would like the Minister in his reply to indicate to us just what role he envisages that Escom will play in future as far as nuclear energy is concerned, and the conflict that may arise between the development of nuclear power as against that pf the coalfields which are in existence now, arid what future is envisaged for our coalfields once the atomic development fulfils its fullest possible role.

With those comments I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Germiston (District) in wishing the Atomic Energy Board well, and in hoping that they will be able to prevail upon the Government to realize that an amount of R 15,000,000 over the next five years is not sufficient for their research and work. They should be given more money, so that our young scientists should be encouraged to take up a career in this very promising field.

Mr. Speaker, quite a number of aspects have been mentioned, particularly by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). I want to confine myself to a few of the matters referred to by him, as well as those raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). The hon. member for Germiston (District) referred to certain aspects that can be more profitably dealt with in the Committee Stage; I think he only mentioned these aspects to afford me an opportunity of considering them in the meantime. I appreciate that approach.

As far as research is concerned, it has been correctly stated that it plays a very important part. It is for this reason—with a view to research—that the installation at Pelindaba has almost been completed. But this is not the only place where research is being undertaken. Our universities also play a major part in research. The University of Pretoria does some work at Pelindaba and also at the C.S.I.R. The University of the Witwatersrand has certain apparatus there, and so has Potchefstroom, and both of them are closely connected with the research that is being done at Pelindaba. As far as the southern universities are concerned, there is the joint research station for Stellenbosch and Cape Town that is already in operation. The universities therefore have certain facilities. This research work is extremely expensive, of course, and therefore it is essential to co-ordinate it so that the widest possible field of research can be covered with the available capital.

The Department of Education, Arts and Science has therefore made every effort to coordinate this research as much as possible. The organization at Pelindaba, which is under the control of the Atomic Energy Board, has made available quite a number of bursaries in recent years, and students have been sent abroad to be trained. Many of them have already returned and others will be returning soon to take up their places at Pelindaba. It is true that the services of some of these scientists may not become available to us. Unfortunately this tendency is found not only among these scientists but also among others. However, the Scientific Advisory Council have tried to find out what can be done to keep these people here and to prevent their leaving, and, if they do go abroad, to make it attractive for them to return and to accept employment here. Unfortunately this tendency is one that is not peculiar to South Africa; it is the tendency even in Britain, which is losing a large number of her scientists to the U.S.A. It is understandable that they want to attract these people, because they have had an expensive training and they are a tremendous asset. We have to admit that this is a loss to us, but everything possible is being done to keep them here.

The amount of R15,000,000 has been mentioned and the opinion has been expressed that it may not be sufficient, but may I point out that this is a five-year programme and if it appears that a larger amount is required consideration can then be given to it. But we all realize the importance of this Safari installation and of the work being done by the Atomic Energy Board, particularly in view of the fact that South Africa is one of the largest producers of uranium and because it is of very great value to us. The hon. member for Springs asked about the future use of uranium. We know that our experience has been that our uranium contracts have had to be extended because the demand for uranium has not increased at the rate anticipated or has not been maintained at the level that was expected. Recently, however, after returning from abroad, Dr. Roux, the Director of the Atomic Energy Board, said that it was anticipated that the demand for uranium might start increasing again after 1970. From an economic point of view we hope that that is correct and that there will be an increase in the demand for uranium, because our uranium out put has made and is still making a very large contribution to our foreign exchange.

We have been asked to keep in touch with developments. I think that is already being done, because only recently Dr. Roux and a large group of scientists of the Atomic Energy Board went abroad to attend a conference in Vienna, and they have now their report in this connection. The possible future use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes was discussed at this conference. I can give you the assurance that at the scientific level the best co-operation exists between ourselves and the leading countries in this field of development. We are therefore fully informed and our scientists who now return after studying abroad are also acquainted with developments there.

The question has been raised as to whether an amount should not be made available for uranium research as well. I may say that a certain amount of research is already being carried out. It is not in connection with the production of uranium; it is an investigation in connection with other minerals which we think are to be found in this country and which may even be supplementary; this investigation does not relate to the gold mines. I cannot say much more about it, but this investigation is already in progress and some of the funds made available for this purpose have already been spent.

The question has also been raised as to whether we should not make provision for electric power to be generated by means of atomic power. The position is that an investigation was carried out under the chairmanship of Mr. Forsyth a few years ago, and it then became evident that it would not be economical to build electric power stations operated by atomic energy as they would cost top much. There are quite a number of these nuclear electric power stations abroad, but the question is whether they are really profitable and whether they can operate as economically as power stations using coal. Many experiments have been carried out, and the costs have been reduced considerably, but they nevertheless remain very high. A power station such as the one in Britain cost approximately R 160,000,000, and to-day it will probably cost even more. We in South Africa, however, are in the more fortunate position that we can produce considerable quantities of cheap coal that is suitable for generating electric power; it is not anticipated therefore that in this country nuclear power will easily take the place of power generated from coal. Cape Town and the Western Province are perhaps the obvious places to erect such nuclear power stations, especially because the coal has to be conveyed over such a long distance by rail, but here, too, a new factor has entered into the picture.

We know that the power lines have already been taken across the mountains at Worcester to supply power to the railways, and that the line has already been electrified up to Beaufort West and that it will be taken further to De Aar. So the power lines already extend over long distances. But as a result of the fact that electric power will be generated at the Orange River as soon as the first phase of this scheme is completed, it will be possible to supply power to the Western Cape from the Orange River, and this source of power might then also be connected up with power lines running from the north. This will open up new possibilities; when the use of the water for irrigation purposes results in less power being generated at the Orange River it may be that it will not be possible for power for the Western Cape to be supplied from the Orange River, but since the high voltage lines running from the Western Cape will be connected with the whole of the network in the Northern Free State and the Transvaal, they can even be connected up with the power stations in the north. This network already makes it possible to supply power from Komati to places as far afield as Kuruman, and it is by no means impossible that power may be supplied in future to the Cape Province from the Komati, over a distance of more than 1,200 miles. This creates quite a number of new possibilities therefore. The new idea is also that these power stations should be established on the coal fields, because it is cheaper to generate the power there. I therefore think that as far as the area down here is concerned the price of the power will always be the decisive factor, and if it is cheaper to supply this power from the north it will probably be a long time before it is generated here by means of nuclear power.

The question has been asked whether we cannot grant technical assistance to Africa. I can only say that this legislation also makes provision for the use of radioactive isotopes. As far as research and the training of research workers in Africa are concerned, I do not think much will come of it at this stage, because the peoples of the rest of Africa have not yet reached the necessary stage of development, and there are very few trained scientists in Africa.

However, it has always been our attitude that as far as technical assistance is concerned we are quite prepared to grant any form of technical assistance to the rest of Africa. As far as the use of these radioactive isotopes is concerned, it is not impossible that we may be able to grant assistance in this form, because these isotopes are used in the medical field for diagnosis and therapy and for sterilizing drugs. In industry they are used for making analyses, in measuring processes and for the pasteurization of food, and in agriculture and biology they are used to produce mutations in plant life and to control insects, etc. I do visualize that as far as the use of these isotopes is concerned it will in fact be possible to grant some form of assistance to the rest of Africa.

As far as ships are concerned, discussions in regard to international conventions are being held at the moment, but I cannot give any conclusive reply in this regard.

To come to my final point: The hon. member for Springs referred to the sitting of the Pelindaba Station near Pretoria. One of the main considerations in favour of sitting it there was the very fact that this place is situated near to the Universities of Pretoria, the Witwatersrand and Potchefstroom, in a locality that is within easy reach of the students and where they can do research work. The safety aspect was also an important factor and I can give the hon. member the assurance that the persons responsible for choosing this site considered this aspect very carefully. It is believed that there is no danger of atmospheric pollution; when this installation was built every possible precautionary step was taken so as to be able to stop the operation of this installation immediately should there be any warning signs. The inhabitants of this area therefore have no cause for anxiety in this regard.

I think the few other matters which have been mentioned can best be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

With the establishment of the Department of Planning in August 1964, a division for physical planning was included in this Department. This division consists of the planning section of the former Department of Community Development, and also the Group Areas Board and the Natural Resources Development Council with its staff.

The administration of those provisions of the Group Areas Act, 1957, dealing with group area planning and permit administration before and up to proclamation, has been entrusted to me in my capacity as Minister of Planning. The administration of the other provisions of the Act have been entrusted to my colleague, the Minister of Community Development.

The establishment of the Department of Planning and the division of the functions between the Minister of Community Development and myself have made it necessary to adapt the Group Areas Act, 1957 to the changed circumstances, and the clauses dealing with it are the following: Nos. 1 (b) and (d), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 13. In terms of the new set-up there are now three Ministers who may appoint officers to perform certain work and to exercise certain powers. Consequently it has been considered desirable completely to separate the functions to be performed by the Group Areas Board and officials and Clauses 2 (a) and (b), 3, 10 and 13 should be regarded in this light. The rest is self-explanatory and we need not expand on that further.

Further, there are only four clauses which require special mention. The rest are mainly consequential amendments or amendments which are necessary to bring the Act into line with recent legislation.

The first is Clause 11. Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (f) should be read together. They all deal with the occupation of unauthorized persons after the proclamation of an area as a group area for occupation. The protection granted to disqualified persons by the existing sub-section (5) which is being deleted by paragraph (f) is being inserted in amended form in the preamble to paragraph (a). The only difference is that the disqualified person who voluntarily vacates such premises will not be able to return to it. The other amendments envisaged by paragraph (a) are intended to distinguish between the disqualified person who immediately before the proclamation of such a group area had for years already legally occupied the property concerned, and the one who before proclamation entered the area on the authority of a temporary permit. The position of the first-mentioned is not affected, but the latter is being limited to the benefits and the period stipulated in his permit. Furthermore, provision is made that a notice to vacate can also be served on the person who allows that occupation, and that he is exempted from any contractual obligations to the occupier, so that he may be exempt from any possible prosecution resulting from a contravention of Section 23 (1) of the Act.

The amendments contained in paragraph (d) are intended completely to abolish the envisaged prior approval after 7 July 1965 by both Houses of Parliament of the proclamation of future group areas except in the case of Bantu who are outside an area which in terms of the Natives’ Trust and Land Act, 1936 is a released area. The proclamation of group areas in practically all the cities and large towns has already been finalized without such approval. As I have already said, the Department of Planning was established with the particular object of approaching regional planning on a broader basis than that of race. Consequently it appears to be impracticable now to burden Parliament with such a time-consuming task after all these years.

The second clause I should like to deal with briefly is Clause 12. If one reads this clause together with the amendments contained in Clause 11, and compares it with the provisions of the Act, one sees that no new principle is at stake here. The existing provisions are just worded differently so that it may be clear to everybody what the position is of any disqualified person who at the date on which an area becomes a group area for occupation is already legally settled there, and that of any disqualified person who wants to go there after that date.

The third clause which appears to be somewhat complicated is Clause 14. In fact, the existing limitation on the use of land or a site by a disqualified company is now only being extended also to apply to a disqualified natural person. Cases have occurred where persons have made misuse of the defect in the present provision of the Act, and it is in the interest of everybody that this defect should be remedied. There is no reason why a natural person should be placed in a better position than a company.

Clause 15 is the last clause in regard to which I want to say something. Originally the Department established its own inspectorate in terms of this section, but since 1957 this task has been performed by members of the S.A. Police who, in terms of the existing sub-section (7), are appointed from time to time as inspectors by the Minister concerned. Originally the inspectorate was appointed with a twofold object; firstly to obtain the facts which the Minister, the Board or the officer who is at the head of a registration office may require in connection with the application of the Act, and secondly, to ascertain whether the provisions of the Act and other laws prohibiting or limiting the acquisition, possession or occupation of land are being complied with. The first is mainly an administrative function which can be carried out by the officials of the Departments concerned. The second is exclusively a police function which must necessarily be performed by the police. The section as now drafted is simply intended to separate the two functions and to relieve the S.A. Police of the administrative function of gathering facts for Ministers of other Departments and the Board. The investigation of cases of illegal possession and occupation of land differs in many instances from other criminal cases, and therefore it is essential that a member of the Police Force who investigates such a case should be clothed with the same powers as were entrusted to the inspectors. In view of the fact, however, that the S.A. Police have been performing this function ever since 1957, this section therefore legalizes the position as it existed before, and it does not mean that in practice there will be any extension of the powers of the police.

Sir, this is the hon. the Minister’s first venture into the somewhat troubled waters of group areas and I must say that having listened to his introductory speech, he almost made it sound like a simple operation. But no matter how widely we may differ with regard to this matter—and differ we will —I want to wish him good luck. He is going to need it. The hon. the Minister has outlined changes in the administration and control of group areas. He has dealt with principles contained in certain clauses, and I want to say immediately that we differ considerably and substantially from him as far as those changes of principle are concerned, but I propose to deal with those particular points more in detail later on in the course of my speech, instead of taking up the time of the House at this stage. I will also deal later with the question of the change-over to police administration, to which the hon. the Minister has just referred and on which we have very decided views. Sir, this Bill now comes before the House as a Bill to amend the Group Areas Act, but as we have just seen, it has been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Planning and not by the Minister of Community Development who, after all, is the Minister who is going to be responsible for carrying out the work of establishing the group areas and putting into practical operation all the far-reaching provisions and powers which go with this compulsory movement of population and the daily control of the people affected. This combined procedure in itself is a demonstration of the new pattern which is being applied to group areas and similar legislation, a pattern by which control over the matter is being carved up between several Departments, between several Ministers, each being responsible for some particular section or other of the administration of group areas, but no single Minister being responsible for carrying out the Government’s group area policy as a whole. So far from being an amending Bill, as is stated in the title, the Bill in fact introduces important changes in the group areas legislation and in several important respects introduces what amounts to new principles into the original Group Areas Act of 1950. Even after full allowance is made for the massive volume of amendments, this measure has already suffered in vain attempts to make it practical and workable. In addition to these new principles and division of control, the Bill removes an important time limit safeguarding a measure of parliamentary control over the proclamation of group areas as contained in the original Act. Sir, I think it might be as well, in view of the time which has elapsed, if we refresh our memories quickly from a very brief statement of the basic principles enunciated by the then responsible Minister, who was then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Finance, when 15 years ago he introduced the original Group Areas Bill. On that occasion the hon. the Minister said in his opening remarks (Hansard, Vol. 73, Col. 7434)—

Then he went on to say—

I think it is as well that we should recall that statement because there a perfectly clear principle was laid down, guaranteeing the application of the Bill in a fair, equitable and judicial manner. To what extent have these requirements, coupled with the avoidance of any change-over in the existing conditions, which, in the words of the then responsible Minister, would be sudden and complete and thus dislocate the economic life of the country, been carried out? I wonder how far the Luxurama case at Wynberg, the widespread, sudden and complete interference with so wide a range of economic activities as well as the sporting and cultural life of this country, as we are witnessing to-day, lines up with the statement made by the then Minister of the Interior when he introduced the original measure and with the principles contained in the Bill now before us. Sir, this Bill contains changes which to a large measure destroy the value of the guarantee given by the then Minister altogether. There can be no question that the division of control applied by the Bill undoubtedly not only substantially expands and diversifies but also provides for very active intensification in the application of group areas in a manner not clearly indicated in the original Act of 1950, even as since amended. The Bill in this respect takes another big step in by-passing parliamentary control and imposing government by ministerial edict in lieu of legislation. In fact, the Bill to a considerable extent provides the opening whereby Government or ministerial policy may be used as a basis for action which rightly should remain the prerogative of this House. That is one of the principles to which we object in the amending Bill before us. Sir, we have glaring examples of this “policy control” in what is happening all over the Republic to-day—-contradictory statements and widespread confusion in regard to non-White attendance at sporting functions and similar gatherings which have traditionally been open to all races, subject to certain well-known and generally accepted conditions and controls which in principle are applicable to Whites as well as non-White audiences. We have to-day arrived at the stage when the country is being harassed by conflicting rulings given by or on behalf of four different Ministers as well as by a wide diversification of officials. It is significant that this division of “policy” control has swept the country even before this Bill which provides for its legal application has become law. One can only accept that the Government have experienced so many important failures in their administration of the country, particularly with regard to this type of legislation, that the impending provincial elections have driven them to create this group areas upheaval as an election gimmick to divert public attention from their failure in other directions.

I want for a moment to examine the Bill before the House. This Bill institutes a threefold control over group areas, under which implementation and control is divided between three cabinet ministers, with authority also for a fourth minister to intervene under certain conditions. In its first stage the Minister of Planning who has introduced this Bill is responsible for the actual demarcation of separate areas for occupation by particular racial or colour groups either as residential, occupational or trading groups, either as permanent or temporary areas. Amongst other things the hon. the Minister of Planning takes over the task of investigating any area with a view to deciding whether or not it should be proclaimed as a group area for occupation by a particular group, and for the purposes of this investigation the hon. the Minister of Planning uses the staff and resources of the group areas administration and the group areas board. We have a series of such investigations being carried out at the present moment, and the activities of the two departments necessarily have to overlap in that investigation although they fall under the authority of the hon. the Minister of Planning.

They are officials of Planning.

They are also officials of the Department of Community Development.

No, you are wrong there.

[Interjections.] The hon. the Minister says “no” and he is widely supported by hon. members opposite. Sir, quite recently I was involved and at the present moment I am still involved in investigations which are being carried out into this particular aspect in the Cape Peninsula. The members of the investigating committee comprise, amongst others, members of the Group Areas Board. The officials who are doing the official work for those committees are members of the Group Areas Administration.

Are you referring to beach apartheid or to separate residential areas?

To both, but particularly to the investigations which are being carried out with a view to proclaiming separate group areas.

Those people all fall under my Department; they are all officials of this Department.

Sir, that is the very point I am making: here you have confusion worse confounded. The hon. the Minister says that those people fall under his Department.

They have since August 1964.

Those people, prior to that date, fell under the control of the Group Areas Board, and whatever the legislation provides, or whatever camouflage is used, they will undoubtedly be the people who will also have to apply control when we come to the implementation of the Act and the proclamation of proclaimed areas by the Minister of Community Development.

No, they will not.

Well, we will wait and see. We have heard these statements and denials before. but they have a habit of coming home to roost in the end. You see, Sir, the areas having been decided upon by the Minister of Planning and proclaimed as one of the various categories of group areas, the responsibility then passes from the Minister of Planning to the Minister of Community Development to carry out the necessary work, to develop the area and ensure that the required facilities are available; to ensure that housing and similar requirements are made available for the accommodation of the people of the group to be established in the area in question. In other words, the Minister of Community Development in terms of this Bill proceeds to carry out the group areas requirements generally as provided for under the main Act, including the operation of the Group Areas Board and similar administrative machinery necessary for the implementation of group areas. But in regard to the very wide range of matters which in one form or another affect government control of Bantu, particularly in the urban areas, both the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Community Development have to consult or obtain the concurrence of the Minister of Bantu Administration where their proposals in any way affect the operations of that Department. Here again, therefore, we have this overlapping of control and overlapping of responsibilities. Sir, some clauses involve all three Ministers. Thus we have divided control by three or possibly four separate Ministers over what is amongst the most difficult of all types of legislative control. I say that possibly there will be a fourth Minister exercising control because even since the publication of this Bill we have had a fourth Minister intervening, the hon. the Minister of the Interior who in the last few days has come very prominently into the picture with regard to colour control being exercised at a number of sporting functions and at places of entertainment. Is it any wonder. Sir—because all these affairs form part of the economic as well as the cultural and sporting life of the country—that the economic life of this country is thrown into a state of chaos, dismay and confusion by so many different Ministers, so many groups of officials, each giving their own version and their own definition of the powers and the authority which they are supposed to exercise, many of them contradictory. Little clarity is being obtained even in spheres in which a large amount of capital has been invested as part of the economic structure of this country. Is it any wonder that we as a responsible Opposition object to this type of legislation? Sir, I have said that this is the most difficult type of legislation that one has to control. I say that advisedly because it means control over the daily, occupational, residential and family lives of human beings, men and women who have the natural hopes, ambitions and the dignity which is the right of every decent living person, and who as their birthright expect to receive a fair and reasonable share in all respects, of the material wealth and the security which they themselves have helped to create and which they have not only helped to create but which could not be created without their assistance. Sir, the Bill before the House in fact provides machinery which under certain circumstances may well create conditions which are almost the direct opposite of the basic principle of the original Group Areas Bill. It creates a position which by its divided control permits the by-passing of Parliament and the development of what amounts to almost direct action in a number of far-reaching directions. In fact, it permits the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Community Development either to direct or to affect the development, the character, the economic life and the living conditions which have been developed under the long-established and accepted pattern of communal and family life both inside and outside the areas in question. We have had striking examples of this and we still have striking examples at the present moment, as I mentioned a moment ago when I referred to the investigation in the False Bay area, in Kalk Bay and Simonstown. I want to make it quite clear that as far as the officials conducting that investigation are concerned, nobody could have been fairer and nobody could have attempted more seriously than they did to do their difficult job with the minimum amount of harm to the people concerned, and I give them full marks for that.

Why then are you complaining?

I am not complaining about the officials. I am complaining about the policy that they are being forced to carry out. In Simonstown and Kalk Bay alone, where as their public representative I have represented practically unanimous public opinion, proposals were investigated which, if carried out, would involve the uprooting of two complete and well-developed non-White communities comprising between them some 500 families, many of whom have lived, worked and with their family forefathers own their own homes in these areas for upwards of 150 years. Many of them, third or fourth generation families, all essential to the economy of the areas in which they live. It is significant that in both cases, not a single request for the removal of these people was made to the committee of investigation either at the two public inquiries held or in the mass of responsible memoranda noted by the committee. That request may have been made elsewhere, but it was certainly not made publicly and dealt with publicly at the inquiries held in the areas in question.

What has that to do with the Bill?

The Bill provides the machinery for conducting this very type of investigation. Not only does the Bill provide for the machinery but it is extending the provisions which already exist; it has everything to do with that type of investigation. Sir, the hon. the Minister says—I accept what he says and no doubt the Minister of Community Development will say the same—that the intention of the amending Bill is broadly to improve the implementation of the Act and to remove difficulties experienced in administration and to reduce delays and to assist those affected. Those are all things which one can accept as being desirable, in broad principle. But I want to say at once that it should not be difficult to effect major improvements in a number of important directions in the administration of the Government’s policy of group areas. There is probably no piece of legislation on the Statute Book, which despite all its widespread amendments over the past 14 years, which has resulted in greater delays, in more stultified development or in a great sense of frustration and human heartbreak than this piece of legislation. If therefore any improvement can be brought about we are all in favour of bringing about such improvements. Our difficulty is to find where these improvements are being brought about. If any amendment is an improvement and not a retrograde step we would be prepared to support it. Sir, the hon. the Minister of Community Development in particular, who figures so largely in the provisions of this Bill particularly in the later portion of it, has already been referred to. not in a derogatory way, as a young man in a hurry. As I say, I do not regard that as a derogatory description. Where there is organized delay and obstruction, where a local authority or any other body deliberately stands in the way of development, I think that is to be condemned, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister—and possibly in saying this I am relying on the prerogative of older people in addressing a younger person—that I know of no phase of public life, no phase of community life, where shortcuts or ill-considered haste can be more harmful than hasty action in legislation of this kind can be. As I have said, we are dealing here with human beings, with people who have all the failings of human beings. We must also accept that this type of legislation strikes right at the heart of family life and at the pride in and security of home ownership and a true spirit of community development. A state which is essential for creating a stable and satisfying citizenship amongst all sections of our people, without which there can be no long-term future or security to the Republic or unity amongst its people.

I want to come back to another phase.

Come to the Bill.

Sir, I am dealing with the Bill all the time; there is not need for me to come back to it. I am dealing with the effects of this particular measure and of the Act which it is amending. I want to deal with the substitution of the police for the inspectors of the Board who have hitherto carried out certain investigations. I do not propose to deal with this in great detail but I want to say at the very outset that we object to this duty being transferred to the police. The police to-day are already hopelessly overloaded with real police duties, police work aimed at safeguarding the security of the population of this country and the prevention of crime. They cannot accept the massive volume of work which would be entailed in carrying out the provisions of this measure. Sir, the police, being a uniformed force carry an atmosphere with them which a civilian force of inspectors doing the very same work would not carry. We claim that the duties which are here being transferred to the police, such as entry without warrant, the searching of homes, the interrogation of people and all the other things which are provided for in this Bill, are not the functions of the police; they are functions which belong to the Board itself. Apart from overloading the police, the transfer of these duties to the police places a stigma on the people concerned. A stigma which we do not feel is justified. It exposes the police themselves to adverse criticism which is certainly not justified in their case. We have no right to expose them to that criticism.

Then the Bill, in Clause 11 (d) removes the safeguard contained in the original Act, as amended, whereby in terms of Section 10 the proclamation of group areas without first obtaining the prior approval of both houses of Parliament, was limited to a period of 15 years from the date of the original Group Areas Act of 1950. Actually this period expires on 7 July this year. That safeguard disappears with the adoption of the amending Bill. It would have been necessary under that safeguard, as I have said, to have obtained the approval of both Houses of Parliament to proclaim any new group area after that time. In other words, when the original Act was framed it was assumed that within 15 years the whole scheme would be more or less tidied up and that any new area to be proclaimed a group area would have to be submitted to Parliament for approval. That is a customary parliamentary safeguard to protect the interest of any section of the community of the Republic but the Bill before the House abolishes that safeguard. In other words, one can almost say that this particular section of the amending Bill makes the proclamation of group areas a permanent institution in the law of the country whereas under the previous Act the proclamation of Group Areas was limited to 15 years except in very special circumstances where each case would have to receive the approval of Parliament.

There is a similar diminution of safeguards in other clauses of the Bill. In our opinion the Bill places far too full a power in the hands of the Minister, or a group of Ministers, to control the removal of long-established communities from their home areas which they and their families have helped to build and develop and to be restricted to areas in regard to the selection of which they have had little or no say.

The official Opposition has consistently opposed the group areas policy of the Government’s as being ill-planned, as being harsh and, as applied, calculated to create bitterness and ill-feeling amongst the non-White citizens of the Republic, a policy which in its longterm effect can be dangerous not only to the happiness of the people concerned but also to the economy and security of the Republic.

On Tuesday the hon. Minister of Community Development and also the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) said in this House that it was clear that the official Opposition did not want residential segregation, that we wanted mixed residential areas and that the opposition the United Party was putting up to the group of Bills that were being passed through the House, Bills which all followed the same pattern was merely a facade to cover up the fact that we wanted our towns to develop with mixed areas irrespective of race or colour. That statement is too foolish to waste time on it but I want to deny that statement categorically as being unjustified, unsupported by any real evidence and untrue. Our policy has been clearly stated time and time again. It is as well understood by hon. members opposite as it is by us.

What is that policy?

It is to stand for social and residential segregation established in consultation with the people concerned and generally by agreement; social and residential segregation established in accordance with our traditional practice with justice and fairness to all concerned. That is broadly the United Party’s policy.

Is that why the Coloureds are turning away from you?

I shall deal with that interjection in a moment. We have many residential areas where the people are happy which stand as convincing evidence to the success of this United Party policy; areas where understanding, toleration and humanity take the place of the granite-like ideologies which breed harshness with a lack of understanding and ultimately bitter frustration.

The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. Treurnicht) asked just now whether that was why the Coloureds were turning away from us. Sir. I find it difficult to conceive that any responsible—and I repeat the word “responsible"—member on the Government benches can honestly fail to appreciate the significance of the warning bells that have been set ringing by the result of the two Provincial Council Coloured elections we have just had. [Laughter.] They can laugh, Sir, but down deep in their hearts they are very, very worried and they have cause to be worried. Is there anyone in this House so willfully obstinate as not to accept that whatever other side issues may have exercised some influence, the swing to the Left of the hitherto conservative Cape Coloured, the swing to the reckless and extravagant propaganda of the Progressive Party, constitutes the only constitutional protest possible to those people and is a reaction to the frustration and bitterness which have been created by the Government’s widespread onslaught during the past month or two on their fast-vanishing traditional fights and privileges. That is what hon. members opposite have to get into their minds, accept and find the answer. It is a display of loss of confidence. It is an expression of their dismay and loss of confidence created by the conflicting statements arising from the division of responsibility between different departments or officials who show little sign of co-ordination one with the other—confusion and difficulties created largely by the very features that we are objecting to in this piece of legislation, this piece of legislation which spreads its tentacles so wide over so many facets of ownership of the White as well as the non-White people of this country—land-ownership, home-ownership, traditional rights and privileges of the people of the country. All these features are affected by this piece of legislation.

The official Opposition is not prepared to support this Bill which, in our opinion, substantially expands, diversifies and intensifies the application of group areas by compulsion in a manner which cannot fail to increase racial tension and bitterness and that at a time when, as never before in the history of our country, the Government should be taking every possible practical step to eliminate and reduce the points of racial and colour friction and thus assist to regain the confidence of the non-White community of South Africa whilst at the same time helping to restore South Africa’s good name overseas. To win back for us some of the lost friendships of our former friends in those countries, friendships which are essential to the future of this country if we wish to continue to prosper. This Bill moves right in the opposite direction and we shall vote against it. I therefore want to move as an amendment—

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has let the cat out of the bag a week too early. With a view to the Provincial Council election the United Party have been riding their horse during the past few months on the right-hand side of the road. The hon. member now thinks it is close enough to the election to steer the horse over to the left-hand side of the road. The hon. member has not criticized this Bill. He has said very little which has anything at all to do with this Bill. He has adumbrated a number of United Party philosophies which I thought the United Party have long since discarded because they have veered so much to the right in their speeches. The results in the Northern and Southern Cape have frightened them and now they are swinging to the left because they want to retain those voters more than any others. But they are swinging themselves right into the hands of the Progressive Party. That is what they are doing today. They might just as well withdraw their candidates in those constituencies where Progressive Party candidates are also standing so that the Progressive Party can come in unopposed because that is in any case the policy the hon. member has advocated here to-day.

The hon. member has told us what the United Party’s policy is in connection with matters of this kind. Towards the end of his speech he told us that they stood for social and residential segregation but that it must be based on consultation and agreement between the various racial groups. I want to say to him that when the late General Smuts was still leader of the United Party that was not their policy.

What did General Hertzog say about the matter?

That was not their policy during the time of General Hertzog and it was not their policy during the time of General Smuts.

That makes no difference.

General Hertzog never stood for a policy in terms of which segregation had to be applied on the basis of agreement between the various races. He never stood for that. The hon. member for Simonstown said on the basis of consultation and agreement. Let me tell the hon. member that the fundamental principle of group areas, including that of this amending legislation before us to-day, is contained in a United Party Act and that that Act does not refer to “agreement”. That Act of 1946 provided that this or that had to be done with the Indians whether the Indians agreed or not. That Act made no reference to “agreement”. That Act was amended in 1950. That Act, by the way, gave the Indians the franchise which they did not want. That was another thing the United Party wanted to push down the throat of the Indians. The Group Areas Act extends the fundamental principles of the original Act of 1946 to the various races of the Republic. They have also been extended to the Whites. If a White person is in an area where we think he ought not to be he must move out. That applies to every race. That is also the principle contained in this Bill. That Principle is not only being applied to the Indians but to all races, and we are doing so.

The hon. member for Simonstown said very little about the Bill itself. He has nothing which conforms with his philosophical statements to indicate that this Bill will cause the position to deteriorate as compared with what it was. The hon. member’s third complaint was that four Ministers were to-day administering group areas. Surely that is not true, Mr. Speaker. This Bill has nothing to do with the persons who administer a group area. A Department of Planning has been established in South Africa and it should long since have been established. Those matters which still have to be planned in our social and economic life are being placed in the hands of the Minister of Planning. That Department plans the group areas and the officials to whom the hon. member has paid such high tribute are there as the representatives of the Department of Planning to conduct investigations and, like a court of law, objectively to decide which areas should be declared group areas for the various races. That is as far as the Department of Planning goes. The moment the Minister of Planning has proclaimed a group area his task is finished. It then rests with the other Minister concerned to administer the Act. In the case of the Whites and the Coloureds it rests with the Minister of Community Development and in the case of the Bantu it rests with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It has already been in his hands since 1950. It was accepted by everybody at that time that there were different Ministers administering the Act and the hon. member did not then complain about divided control. He said it was right.

I want to make this point, Sir. The hon. member had much to say about the mere fact that there was such a thing as a Group Areas Act. How must we understand the United Party Sir? Their Leader said they would not repeal the Group Areas Act. He said they would amend it in certain respects to make it function more smoothly from his point of view but he did not tell us what those amendments would be. This hon. member, however, declares himself vehemently against the entire principal contained in the original Act. What must we make of them, Sir? The hon. member said the United Party believed in racial segregation, socially, etc., after consultation and agreement between the races. I maintain that that is a direct repudiation of what his own Leader has said they will do with the Group Areas Act. Who is giving the lead in the United Party? Is it because the hon. member is a frontbencher for the first time this year that he wishes to determine the policy? Or is it the Leader of the Opposition who determines the policy?

You do not know what you are talking about.

I wish the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) would keep his peace. We all know that he subscribes as little to the policy of the United Party as I do. He is a Proggy. We know what his sentiments are. We all know he ought not to sit where he is sitting. He should not talk about matters of this nature. He only came into this House the other day. I was here when the Group Areas Act was introduced in 1950. I was in this House when that Bill passed through all its stages and on all occasions when the Act was amended. I know what is behind it all. The hon. member for Simonstown complains because the Act is so often amended. I want to repeat what I have said before in connection with this legislation, namely, that a really active law which is actively applied in a country, a law which concerns the community as a whole, must of necessity be amended from time to time if for no other reason than for the reason that there are legally trained men, like the hon. member for Musgrave, who are always looking for loopholes in order to circumvent the law. Developments take place, certain situations are disposed of by means of such a measure, new situations arise which you have to meet and which you have to solve and for that reason you have to amend the law from time to time. I predict that this will not be the last time that we shall have to amend the Act. We shall have to amend it again from time to time. It makes the administration more effective and that is necessary.

Four matters are actually concerned in this legislation. The matter raised by the hon. member, namely, that it disrupts the economy of the country can only be discarded as ridiculous because this measure has nothing to do with the economy of the country as such.

Not at all?

No, not at all in a new sense.

Can you prove it?

If the hon. member can prove the opposite I shall be very pleased.

Give me a chance.

You will get many chances. We know the United Party have a great deal to say about this measure. We shall give them sufficient opportunity to talk. If the hon. member can show me how this measure affects the economy of the country other than the existing Act I shall be pleased to hear it; I shall be pleased to learn how it affects the economy to the detriment of anybody.

No vested rights are being affected by this measure as alleged by the hon. member. Such rights might have been affected by the original Act but that original Act was a United Party Act, was it not. It is a 1946 Act. The hon. member must not fight with us to-day about it. He should accept co-responsibility for it like a man. He must not be afraid to acknowledge to be the father of his own child.

I have said that this measure dealt in the main with four matters. The hon. member also mentioned that. The first is this: The hon. member said they objected to the fact that the police could also now do inspection work. I can give him two replies to this. The first is that the police have already been doing so since 1957. This is nothing new the police have to do. My second reply is this that where crime is suspected under the Act the police have already since 1950 been doing the necessary inspection work. The Department has had its inspectors and they are now being replaced by officials from outside who also constitute an inspectorate. These officials from outside do all the necessary investigation which has to be done and which has nothing to do with crime. It is only when crime is involved, or when crime is suspected that it is the work of the police to conduct the investigation. All this Bill does is that where in the past the Minister has had to instruct the police specifically, it now gives the police the power to inspect. Why must we saddle the Minister with an administrative task which is in any case of no value in practice? Let the police do it; it is their job to combat and investigate crime. You do not send police to collect statistics or to gather information regarding matters which are not of a criminal nature; you only send them to places where it is suspected that a crime has been committed. That is their work as far as all laws of the country are concerned.

The Clause does not say that.

Will the hon. member please read the clause again.

I am not making the speech; read it yourself.

Read the clause and then you can make your speech afterwards. I am telling the hon. member that the police have no few functions to perform under this measure.

Why incorporate it in the Bill then?

Because the Minister gave them permission in the past to do so and it is unnecessary that he should do so. Let us, as Parliament, give the police permission to do so. We are responsible. A short while ago the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) complained about the Minister having too much power. We are now taking power away from a Minister. We say: “You will no longer designate the police for that task; we as Parliament shall do so ourselves.” And she complaints about it; Now she complains about the police getting more power and the Minister getting less power! The hon. member does not know what she wants.

You are talking nonsense.

I shall have to talk a great deal more nonsense to talk as much nonsense as the hon. member for Wynberg. The first point raised by the hon. member was this objection to the police. I want to say to hon. members of the Opposition that in actual fact the police have less work to do under the Act than they had in the past. The work which was done by the inspectorate in the past and for which the police could also be used is now being divided into two sections. The one section is being done by the officials from outside and no longer by the police. Only that section which deals with crime is left to the police without the Minister having to appoint them each time to do so. By saying the Minister must continue to appoint the police hon. members opposite merely wish to retain a lot of red tape which is quite unnecessary.

I now come to the point made by the hon. member. He says we are now depriving Parliament of all control over the question of group areas because in future it will no longer be necessary to come to Parliament after 15 years to approve group areas. The hon. member used these words, inter alia: “It is a customary parliamentary safeguard” that matters of this nature be left to Parliament. I wonder whether the hon. member did not think he owed it to the House to tell us in connection with which other measure that “customary parliamentary safeguard” existed? How many laws are there in this country where an administrative act, based on a principle approved by this House, must first be approved by this House before it can have the force of law? How many Acts of that nature are there in the country? If there are any I do not know of them and I am sure the hon. member does not either. Where does he get the idea from that it is “customary parliamentary safeguard”? It is simply something he has sucked out of his thumb. Let me tell the hon. member what the background to this 15 year period is. The original Act of 1950 did not say 15 years but five years. It said that after the expiration of five years Parliament, by way of resolution, had to approve new group areas. In the early fifties the Minister of Finance, then the Minister of the Interior, said it had been found that a tremendous number of group areas would have to be submitted to Parliament every year for approval and that that position would obtain for a considerable number of years. He then asked that the period be provisionally extended from five to 15 years. He said it might be found necessary after 15 years to extend the period even further because, he said, if I remember correctly, once the greater majority of group areas had been disposed of so that only a few additional group areas had to be proclaimed every year, those would become exceptions and Parliament could indeed exercise control as to where new group areas were to be established but that it was impracticable, where large numbers of group areas has to be proclaimed, to submit each case to Parliament for approval; Parliament would not have time to do any other work. That is the origin of this provision.

If the hon. member were to move, for example, that the idea of resolutions by Parliament should not be completely abandoned but that it should again be introduced after a number of years, if he were to move, for example, that we should make it 25 instead of 15 years it might be something which the Minister could possibly consider and something which the House could possibly consider because that would fit in with the existing position. Within ten years’ time or so sufficiently few new group areas may perhaps be proclaimed so that this House can deal with them every year. But in the present circumstances I do not think we have any option but to insert this provision because it is simply impracticable for this House first to approve by way of resolution every group area which is proclaimed to-day.

There is one provision in the Bill to which the hon. member did not really refer but about which I want to say a few words. I am pleased to see that it is provided that, after a group area has been proclaimed and new people move in, those newcomers will immediately fall under that proclamation, that it will be possible to move them, and that the owners of the properties into which they move will have the right to eject them. Because at the moment the position is that the new occupant is in a much better position than the old occupant. The newcomer to an area which has been proclaimed a group area has 12 months’ time before he can be ejected whereas under the old method of giving him the necessary notice, the old inhabitant can be ejected much easier. I am very pleased to see that this matter has now been put right. I hope we shall get this measure through as soon as possible because I think it is an improvement on the existing legislation. It is closing loopholes. This matter of newcomers is a loophole which has been discovered and it is essential that it be closed. When an area has practically been cleared of all unlawful occupiers newcomers move in and you are saddled with them right from the start.

I do not propose to follow the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) who has been dealing with detailed matter. I would like to deal with this Bill, supporting the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), on the principles which are involved, and with the attitude of this side of the House. Sir, I was a member of the Other Place and it is now some 15 years ago that I had the privilege of moving an amendment to the original Group Areas Bill. I have been looking at that to-day and I must say that I count it a privilege that I had the opportunity of moving that amendment then rejecting the original Bill which is the base of the whole of this legislation, making a plea that the Government should not follow the course upon which it had set itself but should rather adopt the sound proposals which had been made by the United Party, based of course on the policy of the party as it then was and as it is to-day, which to a large extent had been worked out by the late General Smuts. In that debate it was pointed out to the present Minister of Finance, who was in charge of the Bill that the Government was proceeding on a course to which there was no end. that the Bill which was being passed was hopelessly defective; it was said that there would be constant amendments to that legislation and that it would provoke intense resentment on the part of the persons who came to be dealt with under the compulsive provisions of the Bill; our opposition was based on the belief that the Government was in principle following a completely wrong policy, and that there was another policy which in these years I am convinced, Sir, would have brought about a far better position than we have at the present time, greater progress in separation, without all the hardship and the bitterness which has been evoked as a result of the original legislation and the long series of amending Acts, followed by the Bill which is before the House at the present time.

Voluntary separation?

Sir, the amendment which I moved made it perfectly clear that the party of which I had the honour to be a member believed that to a very great extent the purposes, namely residential separation, could be achieved in overwhelming measure by consultation.

Voluntarily.

On a voluntary basis, after consultation. It would have brought about separation between the races, and it was being achieved at that particular time when the present Government took over. It was our belief then, and it is our belief now, that if decent residential areas were provided instead of the slums in which many of these people lived at the time, large numbers of these people would be drawn out to the new areas. It was recognized at the time that there would probably be a residue, and it was made perfectly clear—if hon. members wish to read my speech of 15 years ago, they are welcome to have it— that we might have to resort in certain respects to compulsive measures. Clearly under the law of that time there were compulsive measures which had already played a part. I now refer to the Slums Act, which is a compulsive measure, but one which has been found essential in all countries of the world and which of course, is applied to areas as distinct from peoples. At that time we took the view that to deal with this matter on the basis of legislation which would bring about forced separation, would leave a legacy of bitterness. And what hon. member in this House can put his hand on his heart and say that we were not correct in taking up that attitude at that time? A great deal has already been achieved, and General Smuts had made it perfectly clear what the intention was. He made it clear that there was a great job that had to be tackled and we, who were his followers, accepted that responsibility, and I have no hesitation in saying, because I firmly believe it that the greatest tragedy so far as this question is concerned is that the Nationalist Party took over the Government in this country in the year 1948. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, I am proud to stand where this party stands, still in opposition to a policy which we believe to be wrong, a policy which in due course of time we will replace by another policy which will achieve the aims we had in mind, and I hope will eliminate a great deal of the bitterness which has come about as a result of the compulsion exercised by this Government over a long period of years. It was made perfectly clear at that time what our policy was. Our policy was clear, as it has always been. It was perfectly clear that this party stood for social and residential separation. The difference in point of view between that side of the House and this side of the House is what is the best method of bringing that about. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we believe that in overwhelming measure it would be possible to bring about that separation by consent, by providing the necessary amenities, by providing the necessary residential areas, by providing the necessary transport, and generally to clear the slums which existed in the various towns, and bring about a happier state of affairs.

What are we doing now?

What the Government is doing at the present time is exactly what they set out to do at that time. They believed that they could deal with this matter effectively by applying the big stick. We never held that view. We held that there was another and better way of tackling these problems and it is for that reason, Sir, that the members of this party have been privileged right through these years—although they have been misrepresented on the platforms in this country, although it has been said that we are in favour of racial intermingling and all the other things that hon. members know about—to stand firmly on the attitude which we took up right at the initiation of this legislation. We said that the legislation was hopeless, although the Minister of Finance at that time thought it was a magnificent piece of work. We said that it was utterly hopeless, that it would lead to further legislation, one piece on top of another —and how right we were. Nobody in this House can deny that we were right in our attitude at that time. We were right as has been proved not only by the previous amending Bills that have been passed year after year, but it is also proved by the Bill at present before us. Here after all these years, this Government comes along and suddenly decides that they need planning in regard to this matter and they transfer it to the Department of Planning. The United Party would have done the planning 15 years ago.

Windermere!

We would have done the planning 15 years ago. The hon. member knows quite well that we did not plan Windermere. What the hon. member does know too is that if the United Party on the basis on which it wanted to tackle the problem had remained in power, would have removed Windermere in a fraction of the time it took this Government to remove Windermere. We believed then, as we believe now, that the correct approach to this matter was on the basis of consultation and agreement to the greatest possible extent. I would like to say to the hon. Minister who is going to be charged under this measure with planning that I hope that his first task will be also to plan to see in what respect we can get this legislation, which has done so much damage to South Africa, off the Statute Book and replace it by another legislation to be worked out in consultation with the groups concerned. We can get back to the idea that these matters can be regulated without friction, by common consent, if the approach is right. I think the hon. Minister would agree with me that the more he achieves with a common-sense approach and through agreement with all the persons concerned, the less need there is for group areas legislation and the operation of group areas legislation. If there were proper planning, even at this late stage, a lot could be achieved. Here I have some hope that the present Minister takes a somewhat different point of view of these human problems than was taken by some of his predecessors, that he might be prepared rather to lay more stress on the question of planning and I hope that there will be far more consultation than there has been in the past and that the hon. Minister’s chief aim will be to seek to reach agreement with all the persons concerned and the groups concerned rather than that compulsive measures should be applied. I have sufficient faith in the other groups who make up the population of this country to believe that if there were a new approach, based on the lines laid down by the United Party in the debates on the original Bill (I hope the hon. Minister will read that portion of the debates which came from this side of the House, and he will get some very good tips), tremendous progress would be made. If the hon. Minister would in the first place regard it as his task—I put to him as a plea —not to get down to the technical details and the planning of that side of this whole question, but rather to get down to see how quickly he can bring about an entirely new approach to this matter on the part of the Government, he will have achieved something for this country.

I do not propose to deal with the legislation in detail. It is just another of the interim measures which came from time to time. I must say that I am distressed when I see the division of this vital matter over a series of Ministers, each working in different fields. It seems to me there is a great possibility of overlapping, a great possibility of expenditure which is quite unnecessary. I do not believe that the way to deal with this matter is by more legislation and the appointment of more Ministers. I know that to an extent their functions are divided. Let me say at once that in the providing of residential accommodation we can all be pleased not only with what has been achieved in the past, but with what has been achieved in recent times. There is no question that better residential accommodation for the non-European sections of the community as well as for the European section of the community is being provided, and I do make the plea—I repeat it for the sake of emphasis— that the hon. Minister must please not lose sight of the fact that if he can ensure that the planning in respect of those aspects proceeds quickly, then almost inevitably he will be able to come to the conclusion that I hope he will come to, and that is that a great deal of this legislation had better be scrapped and removed from the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, we said at the time when the original Bill was placed before this House and the Other Place that it was half-baked legislation. That statement has been proved by the innumerable amendments which have been necessary, and, Sir, it is astonishing that after this Act has been on the Statute Book for a period of 15 years, that at this late stage another fundamental Bill making a complete change in administration has become necessary. It shows incompetence on the part of the Nationalist Government since they started with this matter 15 years ago. If it was necessary to split in this way, it should have been done then, not now. But the split is being made, and I believe the Government is going to force this legislation through. I do not believe that they will heed the pleas which come from this side of the House. I believe that they will put this legislation on the Statute Book, and I would like to say now that I personally believe that we will find next year that the Government will come with another amending measure to correct the errors in this legislation, and in the legislation that is already there. The mistakes I believe they will have discovered by then in these measures, will again have to be corrected.

I want to stress another factor to the hon. The Minister and that is that I believe that one of the principal tasks of this Minister will be most seriously to consider this question of the application of compulsion. I am not talking about new residents in the residential areas which are being provided. I am talking more particularly of certain other aspects of the Group Areas Act. I hope that we will find that this Minister will try and see if he can achieve something to do away with the friction which has resulted from this legislation and to bring about a happier state of affairs between the races. I hope that he is going to find, as I believe he will, when he pays attention to it, that there can be greater progress by agreement by far than through the exercise of these enormous powers of compulsion which the Government has in terms of the legislation now on the Statute Book, as it will be amended by the Bill which is now before the House.

I am glad hon. members opposite have given me an opportunity to put this case undisturbed. It is good sometimes to have that opportunity. I believe that we would get very much further if other hon. members in debating this matter were given the opportunity that I have been given since the initial interjections to put their case fairly before the hon. Minister for his consideration. I say to the hon. the Minister that he is charged with very great responsibilities, quite apart from the technical breakdown which may come about from the splitting of this work over a series of departments. There is the further aspect of planning. I don’t know to what extent the planning will extend. I have indicated what I hope will be the method which the hon. Minister will adopt in approaching that problem. Sir, I believe that we can in this country achieve a position whereby the different racial groups living in separate areas, but all contributing to the building of a great country, can live in peace and build up co-operation. I am convinced that co-operation can only be achieved through co-operation from our side and the elimination, as I have said, of compulsion. I do not apologize for repeating it, because I believe it is absolutely essential. The sooner we can get down to deal with all these difficult problems through consultation and agreement and the absence of compulsion, the sooner we will be able to get so much nearer to the solution of the enormous problems with which we in this country are faced. We know that those problems are enormous. It is going to take faith and effort to eliminate them. Above all I say that the less we make use of compulsion, the more rapid will be the development, to bring about a co-operative society in South Africa in which all the groups will be working together in the interest of our common fatherland.

Now that two hon. members on the side of the Opposition have spoken it has become quite clear that the Opposition do not object to the amendment to the Group Areas Act. as such, moved by the Minister of Planning. Their objection is the old objection we have come to know, ever since 1950 and every time the Group Areas Act has been amended. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has still to a small extent criticized the Bill before the House but the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), who has just sat down, only spoke about the principle of group areas and about the 1950 Act and its amendments without referring to this amending Bill. I just want to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District). Like the hon. member for Simonstown the hon. member for Germiston (District) objected to the suggested amendments and he tried to advance that as proof that the Group Areas Act could not work. He said that was the reason why it had to be amended from year to year.

But that is true.

There you again hear the parrot cry from the hon. member “But that is true”. Three years ago, in 1962, we also amended the Act and the Minister of Coloured Affairs and Community Development took the House into his confidence and told us how many group areas had already been proclaimed. It ran into a couple of hundred and since then various group areas have been proclaimed. Not only have they been proclaimed but they have also been developed. They have been developed to such an extent that even the hon. member for Germiston (District) and others could not help themselves but to praise the progress which has been made. Surely we are not dealing with anything new. We are not in the year 1951 when there was nothing to show as a result of the Group Areas Act; surely we have a great deal to show to-day. Just think of the development which has taken place in this city and throughout the country. Surely there are also signs of the effect of this legislation where the hon. member for Germiston (District) lives. The results are there for everybody to see. But when difficulties arise in connection with the administration of the Act and amendments have to be introduced we do not hesitate to bring those amendments about. As a matter of fact, hon. members must not think they will divert us off our course by saying: “You have to amend the Act annually because it does not function”. I want to refer to what the Minister of Community Development said on 27 February 1962 (Hansard col. 1647)—

If the hon. member wishes to play the role of prophet and prophesy that there will again be amending legislation next year I shall not quarrel with him. It is very possible that that may be so. I do not know whether it will be necessary to amend the legislation next year but if that is necessary to facilitate the administration of the Act the Government will effect the necessary amendments. Another matter raised by both the hon. member and the hon. member for Simonstown and to which they wanted to attach much weight was that a Minister of Planning had been appointed and that we were only now starting to plan. Surely that is so much nonsense, Sir. Has there not been planning all along? Do hon. members not know that the portfolios in the Cabinet have been re-shuffled and that it has become necessary to plan the entire development of South Africa for the future? Do they not know that a Department of Planning has become necessary for that? Because the economic development of our country has to be planned in broad outline it has become necessary to incorporate the planning of group areas. It was right, therefore, to place this matter under the Minister of Planning. Now they allege that there is divided control and overlapping and they want to make an issue of it. What is more logical than that the Department of the Minister of Planning, should do the planning. What is more logical than that the Minister of Community Development should be responsible for the development? What is more logical, when you are dealing with Bantu development than that should fall under the Minister of Bantu Administration. That has been the position all the years and no new principle is involved. I said a moment ago that hon. members had no objection to the amendments. They object to the principle. During the same debate of three years ago to which I have just referred, when the original Act was amended, the United Party moved an amendment. It was moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and read as follows—

1. (a) it will not eliminate the injustices, hard ships and losses suffered by members of all races;
2. (b) it creates a sense of insecurity and uncertainty in the mind of the citizen as to the law and his rights under the law.

To-day the United Party come forward with the same story. The hon. member for South Coast used these words at the time—

It is all very fine and pious on the part of hon. members to say there should not be any force; that it should happen on a voluntary basis. They are also in favour of residential separation but on a voluntary basis. In actual fact, ever since 1950 till to-day, they have opposed every amendment to the principal Act, no matter what it was, because they are against the principle of group areas.

And separate residential areas.

The principle of separate residential areas on a compulsory basis.

Did the hon. member listen to his colleague when he said: “Those poor people whose ancestors had lived in that area for 200 years”. How does he expect to bring about apartheid and separate residential areas on a voluntary basis if he concedes that people who have lived for 200 years in a certain area must remain there, if he does not want to exercise control and if he does not want to apply force?

And if people have lived anywhere for 40 years do you want to kick them out?

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) interjects but those hon. members are the people who say it is only the two Coloured racial groups who are moved when group areas are proclaimed. I want to tell them that I have already also seen Whites moved who have lived in an area for many years. If we wish to clear up this unhealthy state of affairs in South Africa of the races living cheek by jowl and if we have to accept the word of the hon. member for Germiston (District) that he is serious about it as we are, then force has to be exercised to carry out this legislation. If it is a question of a right by prescription—the hon. member asks me whether I want to move people who have been living in an area for 40 years—surely it is not necessary for us to have a Group Areas Act; then we must allow the people to remain there because they have been living there for a long time. No, that argument holds no water.

I want to deal with another interesting submission made by the hon. member for Germiston (District). He said they would have made further progress with the people on a voluntary basis and after consultation. What a beautiful thought! Under which Government did Windermere, Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare come into existence? Under which Government did Korsten in Port Elizabeth come into existence? Under which Government did Cato Manor come into existence? [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, Sir, hon. members are getting uncomfortable. They want to tell us to-day how they could have cleared up those areas but which Government’s task was it to clear up those slums, the worst imaginable? You know, Sir, when we wanted to clear up Sophiatown, Martindale and Newclare good housing already existed at Meadowlands. This: is also my reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Germiston (District) when he said that all one had to do was to see to} it that better housing was available, that slum i conditions were cleared up and that the matter would then sort itself out. When the hon. member for Hospital had the chance on the City Council of Johannesburg of doing something to clear up those slums there was not the] slightest co-operation on the part of his City Council. We had to pass legislation through this House and we had to establish the Resettlement Board in order to move into Meadow-1 lands and to do the slum clearance.

I

And Gorshel was mayor.

He prayed with the; Black Sash.

I notice the hon. member for Germiston (District) who says things must be done on a voluntary basis after consultation is thinking about it. How did we get those people out of Sophiatown? They had to be loaded on to lorries under police protection because they had been incited by people who served on the City Council of Johannes-, burg and by people who were found there the morning when the first lorries arrived to take them away, people like Ambrose Reeves.: [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Hospital is very anxious for me to sit down but I have not finished yet. No, to argue that you can solve the problem of mixed residential areas in South Africa on a voluntary basis is so much nonsense. To-day the hon. member tells us that had the United Party been in power they would have done it on a voluntary basis. He says it was a tragedy that the National Party came into power. I too travel a great deal in South Africa and I still have to. meet anybody who is not grateful for what the Government has done, even United Party supporters. There are many people who say they will vote for the United Party just to have an opposition as long as they know the United Party cannot come into power. The hon. member talked about bitterness but where does it come from? You find this bitterness in those places where we have not yet been able to provide housing and where there are still mixed residential areas. It is there where you find bitterness. In those cases the Government is blamed for not making progress fast enough. We would have liked to have made greater progress had funds and means allowed us to do so and I do not think we would have been hampered too much by the United Party. It is only a question of funds, planning, etc. Where is the bitterness? Is there bitterness in Bishop Lavis or Athlone? No, there is satisfaction. Is there bitterness in Meadowlands or in New Brighton in Port Elizabeth? No, there is no bitterness. You find bitterness in those places where the policy of apartheid is not yet being carried out. The hon. member for South Coast said in 1962 that the points of contact were the points of friction. You find bitterness where there is friction, where there are mixed residential areas. Now the hon. member says: “We know we are being misrepresented on the platforms”. Sir, I often speak from platforms on this subject and I have not yet misrepresented their policy. I always say the United Party want separate residential areas as well but on a voluntary basis. When I explain that to the people they decide for themselves. The United Party know they will never bring about separate residential areas in South Africa on a voluntary basis. What has been the result of their policy of a voluntary basis over the years? The hon. member told us they had “a new approach”. Yes we know their “new approaches”. The one day it is this kind of “approach” and the other day it is “White leadership over the whole of South Africa”. But the hon. member did not tell us anything to-day about this “new approach” as far as the Group Areas Act was concerned. The “approach” they have adopted so far is the one they adopted in 1950 which the electorate rejected and which they know cannot be carried out; an approach nobody wants to have anything to do with and which they only use when they want to swing to the left or to the right as it suits them.

Hon. members have not dealt with the amendments proposed in this Bill. Nor am I going to devote too much time to them. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) has dealt with them in reasonable detail. What is there is this amending legislation we have before us to which hon. members object? They object to the legislation being streamlined. They object to the consequential amendment following upon the creation of a Ministry of Planning and to the development still falling under the Department of Community Development and to the Department of Bantu Administration remaining responsible for the development of the Bantu. Have they any objection to these consequential amendments being effected?

And the police?

I am coming to the police. Have the Opposition any objection to this incongruity in the administration of the Act being removed, this incongruity that a person who has a temporary permit to go to an area, a disqualified person, can remain there for 12 months whereas the one whose ancestors have lived there for 200 years must move out immediately? No, they are silent on that. They have no objection to that. Do they object to this planning being done on a broader basis? Do they object to the position of disqualified persons being explained in this Bill? The hon. member for Hospital thinks he will catch me out by asking me what about the police. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) also interjected and said no crime had been committed and why should the police do the inspection? But nor have I committed a crime for having farmed for a year but the police come to me and bring me a census form which I have to complete within 30 days. There are other tasks the police have to perform as far as I am concerned where no crime has been committed. If a disqualified person lives in a certain area, the police find him there and he has to move out of that area what is wrong with it if the police do that work? Surely they can do it just as well as an inspectorate. No. the only reason why hon. members object is because they are opposed to the Group Areas Act. It is true that when areas are proclaimed there are people who do not qualify, in a lesser number of cases Whites and in a greater number of cases Coloureds and Bantu, and who have to be moved. That is necessary when you have a policy such as that of the National Party but I have not the faintest idea what the policy of the United Party is. Personally I do not think that is their policy. It is true that when you move people there are certain cases of “hardships” but when something like that happens I have yet to hear any members of the United Party expressing gratitude in this House to the Government for having provided better houses and for having removed points of friction. I have only just heard about the “hardships” and the misery and the injustices that have been caused. We hear about the rights of people being interfered with. people who have lived in a certain place for 200 years, and we hear about people who have been humiliated. I do not think you humiliate a Coloured person when you move him to a new Coloured area. What humiliation is there in that? It is argued that people are economically ruined and that they suffer tremendous losses. Where do they suffer these losses? Must we give somebody the right to continue to run his little banana shop in the heart of a White residential area simply because he has had that right before? Is it the policy of the United Party that he should remain there or do they want to move him? Sir. I want to sit down.

You don’t want to sit down; you have to.

Order! The hon. member for Hospital must not make it impossible for hon. members to make their speeches. He simply makes it impossible for a member to make a proper speech in this House. I am going to keep my eye on him.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker. Hon. members talk about a voluntary basis but I want to tell you. Sir. how it works. If you own a house in Pinelands and you want to sell it you find that there is a provision in your deed of transfer which says you can only sell it to a White person. You can buy your apartheid in Pinelands, Houghton anti Parktown but you cannot buy it in Vrededprp and Fordsburg and in Somerset East. That is the voluntary basis on which hon. members opposite want to have separate residential areas and that is why you will allow me, Sir, to conclude by saying this to the United Party: I do not believe it has been or is their policy to bring about separate residential areas in South Africa and that is why we support this amendment to the Group Areas Act. We shall continue to amend those laws until such times as the position in South Africa has been sorted out and every racial group has its own area in which to live.

It is quite evident that the speakers who spoke on the Government side made heavy weather this time to defend the legislation dealing with group areas. I have never made a secret of the fact that I abhor and loathe and despise any legislation dealing with group areas. You will permit me, Sir, before I come to certain clauses of the Bill, to refer to some of the statements made by the last speaker. May I point out i to him that there is tangible evidence where areas have been built up for different groups on a voluntary basis, with co-operation and goodwill—and I quote him—Scotsche Kloof which was built before this Government came into power, for the Mahommedans only. There was no fuss; it was accepted. It was with goodwill and co-operation that it was built. You have Athlone, a completely Coloured area.

Oh no. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo), for whom I have the highest regard and respect, knows it. He proudly said to the House that the Minister who previously dealt with the group areas, announced a large number of group areas which have already been proclaimed, and he made that statement with such pride. I would have been ashamed to admit it. that so many people have been moved and uprooted from their homes. I would not be proud of that fact. The hon. member should rather admit that the Government has created a Frankenstein and that this monster has become so big that the Government can hardly handle it any longer because it has got out of control. And what is the result? That in this wonderful country, South Africa, where we talk of democracy and freedom, we are being governed by permits and by exemptions. You can hardly move in the streets without having a permit.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

With respect, I am talking about the Bill, which refers to permits. The Bill says that you cannot do this or that without a permit.

But before I come to the Bill I want to correct a statement which was made here about Windermere. Windermere was under the control of the Divisional Council and we pleaded in the city that if the Government wants to do a favour to the City of Cape Town, they will abolish the Divisional Council, and it took us years and years before the City of Cape Town could obtain control of Windermere from the Divisional Council, and since the city took over control they immediately started to clear it up.

Will the hon. member admit that the Divisional Council, with the exception of two members, consisted of United Party members?

I shall certainly not do that, because I think there were quite a lot of members who belong to that party. But we do not want to quibble about this. I do not want to blame any body. I am merely trying to say that Windermere has been drawn across the floor of this House by the hon. members opposite with the object of trying to show that we on this side of the House permitted a state of affairs to continue which should not have continued, and I say that as a member of the City Council at the time we tried for years to get control of Windermere from the Divisional Council, and immediately we got control we started to clean it up. None of us need be proud, neither the Government nor we, that there are still slums in South Africa. Everyone wants to clean up slums. But I want to tell the last speaker, who said that nobody should grumble if he is moved from one place to another …

From one slum to another.

I want to deal with this Clause 6 which says that the Board shall not advise the Minister in regard to the issue of any proclamation without taking into consideration whether or not suitable accommodation will be available. Who is going to decide what is suitable accommodation? Does the Minister know that every man who has been uprooted from his home will not accept the type of house the Government gives him because it is not suitable? One man said one day: The Government is offering me a house, not a home. This man had been moved from a wonderful home. What is the suitable accommodation referred to in this clause? Does it mean the pondokkies which are being built? Does the Minister realize that there are hundreds and thousands of Coloured men who have occupied homes worth thousands of rands? They do not get suitable accommodation, which is suitable to them. We cannot just give a man a little house consisting of two or three rooms costing R 1,000 when he has occupied a house worth R5,000 and tell him that is suitable accommodation. At this stage I should like to move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.