I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

We have now reached the final stage of the discussion on the Minister’s Budget, and I think it is important that we should place on record the fact that the Minister has given us no reply to the important issues raised by this side of the House. Sir, we put forward practical suggestions to the Minister as to how to meet the transportation crisis that exists; we made practical suggestions to him in the course of this debate as to how to meet the transportation needs of South Africa in the future, and we made certain suggestions to the Minister in respect of the present staff difficulties but, Sir, we have had no reply from the hon. the Minister. But what I think is more important is that the Minister has displayed no vision at all; he has not told us in this debate how he intends in the future to meet the problems of the Railways, to which he himself referred in his Budget speech. I am reminded of what the Minister told the staff of the S.A. Railways in his Christmas message. On that occasion the Minister, quoting from Thomas Carlyle, said, “Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand.” Sir, I think the Minister will not take it amiss if I use that quotation on this occasion in relation to the Minister. We think that he should do what lies clearly at hand and that he should give this side of the House and the country the benefit of his ideas and views as to the future transportation needs of South Africa and how he intends to overcome the transportation problems of the S.A. Railways.

There is another matter which I think I should deal with right at the outset and that is the challenge which the Minister threw out so glibly across the floor of the House on another occasion and to which we on this side of the House responded. I want to remind the House that the Minister issued the challenge; he said that he was prepared to stake his personal reputation in this matter and, if necessary, to resign if he could not get a vote of confidence from the staff associations. On the first occasion the Minister ignored our acceptance of his challenge; it was only when he was prompted on a second occasion that the Minister responded to our acceptance of his challenge, but because the Minister was afraid of our acceptance of his challenge as issued by him originally, he proceeded to add further qualifications to his original challenge. Sir, what is distressing about it is this: The Minister has no scruples whatsoever in throwing out a challenge of this nature across the floor of the House and dragging the Railway staff associations and Railway employees into the political arena; he does so on the evening of what are obviously delicate negotiations between the hon. the Minister and the staff associations in regard to the difficult staff position. Sir, I throw back with contempt the counter challenge issued by the hon. the Minister because it is clear that the Minister was running away from his original challenge.

Sir, there is one other matter which I think you will forgive me for raising in passing because I do not think that this should be left unsaid: I refer to the shocking report broadcast over the S.A.B.C.’s political programme in respect of the debates which have taken place in this House. It was said in that broadcast that it was our policy …

Order! I think the hon. member should raise that matter on another occasion.

It was stated that our policy for solving the staff problem was to break down the colour bar. We have never said that and it has never been the attitude of this side.

You are trying to break down the colour bar; that is quite true.

Sir, we have not seen the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in this House at all during these discussions; he has displayed no interest whatsoever in the lot of the railwaymen in his constituency and now he enters this debate by way of an interjection.

I still say that you want to break down the colour bar.

Our policy is clear. If anybody has broken down the colour bar in the Railway Administration, then it is the Minister and the Minister has done so in following the policy that he has been following over the past few years; he has admitted it in this House in the course of these debates. Our policy is perfectly clear; it has been stated over and over again and I am not going to repeat it on this occasion. Sir, what are the realities of the situation; what are the burdens which are being placed to-day on the shoulders of the railwaymen? The Minister has told us that there are 7,500 actual vacancies on the establishment of the Railway Administration to-day. He has also told us that the position is likely to worsen if the Railways are required to haul more traffic than they are hauling at the present time.

It is self-evident that if the present boom conditions described by hon. members on the Government benches are to continue, then the Railways are going to be required to haul more traffic than they have done over the past 12 months, and if they have to haul more traffic a greater effort will be required from the railwayman. Sir, I want to be realistic about these figures. The Auditor-General points out that in 1959 it took 1.86 railway-men to operate 1,000 train and engine miles; in 1964, according to the latest report of the Auditor-General, it took 1.60 railwaymen to operate the same number of train and engine miles. In other words, it requires 25 per cent more effort on the part of the existing establishment to cope with the demands made on the Railways as far as traffic is concerned. But if one wants to put these figures on an even more realistic basis, then one must bear in mind that in 1964, compared to 1959, the Railways are operating 50,000,000 more engine and train miles, and yet there has been a reduction of 2,200 employees during that period in the staff establishment concerned with hauling an additional 50,000,000 engine and train miles plus an additional 20,000,000 tons of traffic. Sir, those figures are quoted in the Auditor-General’s reports for 1959 and 1964. Sir, the pertinent question that arises here is this: What have the railwaymen got out of this additional effort? What have they got from the hon. the Minister? It is very interesting to see what the railwaymen have in fact got from the Minister. The Minister refers in his White Paper to pa] increases granted to the railwaymen, to the holiday bonus, to the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances and to the rationalization of pay and grades. Sir, I am going to quote two comparative figures. I think it is necessary to do this because the Minister, when he was told by the hon. member for Yeoville that it was possible to meet to a certain extent the legitimate pay demands of the railwaymen. stated that if he had to give an increase of 10 per cent it would cost the country another R26,000,000. Sir, what is the Minister’s objective in mentioning that figure in this House? His first objective is to frighten the country and his second objective is to frighten the railway men. What are the facts? Taking into consideration the rationalization of nay and grades, the consolidation of cost-of-living allowance and the holiday bonus, the railway-men have not had a 5 per cent increase in the over-all benefits given to them between 1959 and 1964. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister wants to know how I arrived at that figure. The Minister has prepared surpluses during that same period amounting to R 120,000,000, but the railwaymen have not had 5 per cent out of the surpluses declared by the Minister during that same period. Are you surprised at all, Sir, that the railwaymen who are being asked to put in more and more effort in order to keep the wheels of the Railways turning for the Minister, are asking themselves, “What do we get out of all our efforts; what do we get out of working overtime, Sunday-time, and foregoing ordinary home life; what do we get out of this 25 per cent additional effort that is required from us in order to keep the wheels of the Railways turning?” The railwaymen want to know why they have received nothing out of the surpluses of R 120,000,000 which the Minister was able to declare because the railwaymen did their duty and more than did their duty over these years. The plain fact of the matter is that what is called for is a new approach on the part of the Minister to staff problems. The Minister talks about planning, but I ask the House and I ask the country what concrete suggestion the Minister has put forward to overcome the obvious difficulties that he faces at the present time? There has been no suggestions whatsoever from the hon. the Minister, but what there has been is an attempt not only by the Minister but by hon. members on the Government benches to make political capital out of the industrial colour bar. Sir, we on these benches have put forward certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister; we have drawn his attention to the steps taken by the United Party Government when it was faced with a similar set of circumstances in the immediate post-war years. The United Party Government at that time faced a similar problem; it faced a shortage of manpower not in the higher grades but in the lower grades of railwaymen. The United Party Government of those days appointed a commission to investigate the while situation and it was as a result of the recommendations of that commission that the immediate difficulties, as far as unskilled and semi-skilled staff were concerned, were immediately overcome. We throw out the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that he might well follow the example of the then United Party Government and appoint a commission to investigate the position of rail workers and casual workers, of whom there are something like 15,000 in the Railway Service. Should their positions not be improved; can these men not be trained for semi-skilled occupations such as those of shunters and foremen. occupations requiring only a Std. VI level of education? It is in those lower grades that the Minister has to contend with a shortage of staff, not so much in the higher grades. The Minister told us on another occasion. “My problem is that I cannot find the men to fill these lower grades because the educational standard required is so low.” With the rising standard of education in South Africa as far as Whites are concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Minister where he hopes then to get guards, shunters and station foremen if the only educational qualification required is Std. VI? Is that the prospect that is held out to Whites to-day, that under the National Party Government they can leave school at Std. VI and then go and work in the Railway Service, where they have to be content with the low rates of pay applicable to these semiskilled occupations? It is our view on this side that if there was a satisfactory relationship between the Minister and the staff associations it would be possible to negotiate with the staff associations with a view to replacing Whites employed in these posts with non-Whites. We base that statement on the fact that we believe that the trade union leaders in the Railway Service are responsible men, and if they have the interests of the workers at heart, as we do not doubt they have, then we are quite convinced that they want to see the income level and the standard of living of their members raised. Sir, if there are no Whites available to fill these posts and the train still has to be kept running and the demands made on the Railways to convey goods increase year by year, then what is the Minister’s alternative? Is his alternative to say that he must find more men with Std. VI only to meet the shortage of shunters, station foremen, etc., or is his alternative to go to the staff associations and to say, “I want to uplift the standard of living and the income levels of the men employed in these semi-skilled occupations and I see no alternative but to replace them by non-Whites, by Coloureds and Indians?” Sir, the Minister is doing that at the present time. The Minister is employing Coloured clerks. A White clerk is classed as an officer; he is not classed as an employee in the Railway Service. What is a Coloured clerk? Is he an officer or an employee? There are many posts in which the services of non-Whites are being used in the Railway Service to-day, but our complaint against the Minister is that he is not prepared, for politcal reasons, to face the transportation problem of South Africa. I personally believe that it is because of the Minister’s lack of confidence in the leadership of the staff associations, that he cannot face this issue squarely and settle with the railway employees. I have no doubt that there is not a single railwayman in the lower grades to-day who does not want to see his post up-graded and to improve his position.

I want to mention one further example. The hon. the Minister claims that the relations between himself and the staff are perfectly satisfactory; that he looks after the interests of the staff in every direction and that there is no need for complaint. He says that the relationships between him and the staff are cordial. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is quite true. The House will recall the difficulties which the Minister experienced with his Airways’ technicians. But the Airways’ technicians are not the only technicians with whom he experienced difficulties. I want to ask the Minister whether he has had any dealings with Railway technicians employed in the communications, signals and lighthouse sections. There are some 350 of these technicians holding equally responsible positions as the Airways’ technicians. My information is that these technicians, holding responsible positions, put forward representations through the usual channels, through their staff association. Salstaff, for an up-grading of their posts on 10 October of last year. On 25 November these technicians, with the executive of Salstaff, met the General Manager. I understand that the General Manager’s attitude to their representations was sympathetic, and when the General Manager referred the matter to the Chief Signals Engineer, who is directly concerned with their work, and to the Chief Electrical Engineer, these responsible officers, representing the Management, fully substantiated the claims made by the technicians and made some pertinent observations, I am given to understand, in favour of the representations made by these technicians. The General Manager’s reply on this occasion was that he would have to refer this matter to the Minister for a decision. He had to do so because the Minister had advised the Federal Consultative Council that he was not disposed to grant any further wage increases to the staff in view of the fact that they had been granted a holiday bonus. The technicians were advised that the Minister’s decision would be made known to them early in January. By the middle of February, some three and a half months after they had submitted their original representations, the technicians had still received no reply, so they sent off a telegram in the middle of February and the Minister’s reply was made known to the technicians on 28 February only. Sir, I am not going to go into all the claims of these technicians. I am merely indicating the history to indicate that although the technicians made representations through the correct channels on 10 October, it was only on 28 February, after a telegram to the Minister, that they received an adequate and satisfactory answer. In other words, for four months, this group laboured under a grievance and they are still labouring under a grievance because they have received no satisfaction whatsoever from the Minister; the Minister refuses to give any consideration to their claim. The complaint of these Railways technicians is that although they are required to specialize in two particular trades, as compared with Post Office technicians who are required to specialize in one trade only, their salary scale is lower than that of the Post Office technicians who, as we all know, are at present agitating for an increase in pay. After the hon. the Minister’s decision was made known to them, the majority of these technicians voted in favour of taking similar action to that taken by the Airways technicians, and it was only on the wise advice of their leaders that such action was not taken and that they decided to continue to negotiate for improved conditions. Sir, this is but one group; there are many such groups in the Railway Service to-day who are agitating for a redress of their grievances. This case is typical of the dilatory fashion in which the Minister and the Administration proceeded to handle what is obviously a case requiring very special consideration by him as Minister so as to be able to have a satisfied and contented staff. In this particular case the Minister cannot level the charge against this group of technicians, as he did against the Airways’ technicians, that they did not submit their representations through the proper channels. These men acted along the proper lines. It is clear that they are a frustrated group; there have been numbers of resignations. These men are specialists in their particular fields and they cannot easily be replaced. Sir, if this attitude continues to be adopted towards the staff, if this dilatoriness continues, if the Minister fails immediately to attend to the requirements of the staff in a manner which will satisfy the staff, then one can imagine what the over-all result will be. Sir, if we are to keep a happy and contented Railway staff, then it is perfectly clear that what is required is an entirely new approach to the entire staff structure of the Railways. And when we talk about staff, we do not think only of the 1,800 White employees. If the expansion of the Railways is to continue, if the capital expenditure of R 1,000,000 provided for in the Brown Book is to be justified, if the tonnage hauled by the Railways is to continue to increase, then nobody in his right senses will contend that the staff requirements of the S.A. Railways can be met out of the available White manpower, because as the Minister well knows and as the Prime Minister must know, there are simply no Whites available to occupy these lower grades. It is obvious why White manpower is not available to fill these posts; it is because the standard of living of the White South African is continually rising, and in those circumstances the Minister has no hope whatsoever of filling these low-graded positions in the Railway Service. Our complaint is that the Minister will not face the reality of the situation in South Africa; he is not prepared to face the staff associations and admit the reality of the situation. Why? Because there will be an election on the 24th and the Government can still make a little bit of political propaganda with regard to the industrial colour bar. [Interjections.] I have often observed in the past, Sir, that when you strike the right note, when you have hit the target, you get a flood of interjections from hon. members on the other side. The obvious thing to do is to face the realities of the situation, to adopt a practical approach, and to say, “We must negotiate in this matter.” Sir, we have given the Minister the idea, but I do not know whether he will rise to it.

In the minute or two left to me I want to emphasize again the remarkable situation that we have here, a situation which I do not think has ever been equalled in the annals of this Parliament. Here we have a Budget in which the Minister sets aside R6,000,000 and puts it into his back pocket: he says, “I am putting it into my back pocket because I do not quite know how I am going to spend it.” The Minister sets aside R6,000,000 on the basis of a report about which the Minister has been afraid to say one single word in this House. Sir, this is the most important report that has ever been produced as far as the financial structure of the Railways is concerned. Here we have a report which will not only affect the financial structure of the Railways but which, if its main recommendations were implemented, would greatly influence the economic expansion of our country in the future. The Minister’s only reference to this report in his Budget speech is his announcement that he is locking R6,000,000 away in his back pocket but he refuses to tell us how he is going to spend it and which recommendations contained in the Report he is going to accept and which recommendations he refuses to accept. All the Minister says, is “I am not going to answer your questions now; come back next session and then we will deal with it”. He asks us to come back next session, two years after the publication of the report. Sir, we are placed in a ludicrous position. On the one hand we have to vote R 1,000,000 for capital expenditure on railway expansion; on the other hand we have a committee appointed by the Minister to investigate the co-ordination of transport services in South Africa. The Minister has been unable to draw a distinction between the obvious needs for railway operating in South Africa and the obvious requirements and the future of railway transportation in South Africa in relation to all the other transportation possibilities that the commission of inquiry appointed by the Minister may recommend for the future. But what is even worse is that when the report of a commission appointed by the Minister to go into the rationalization of transport requirements and the proper coordination of the Railways as a public transportation service and the interests of private transportation, is made available and makes it clear that the obvious future of the Railways will be based on the haulage of bulk traffic, we will not know nor will the Minister know (because there may even be a change of Government), because we will not be in possession of the facts, what the position will be as far as railway capital expenditure is concerned. In relation to any recommendations of this commission appointed to investigate the co-ordination of transport needs, an investigation into capital expenditure is clearly required. Because it is obviously clear that the millions of capital being expended to-day is not for the haulage of high-rated traffic. The Minister can haul all the high-rated traffic he wants to haul; he gets 50 per cent of his revenue from high-rated traffic, but the capital expenditure we are incurring to-day is for the haulage of low-rated traffic such as agricultural products, mineral products and so on. Sir, the Schumann Report, which throws overboard the long-cherished idea of basing rates on the principle of what the traffic can bear, recommends drastic new thinking, yet the Minister has not been able to utter one word on these principles. I think it is clear that this debate has revealed that the Minister has shown himself to be incompetent and unable to meet the problems facing the S.A. Railways.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has once again asked, “What thanks have the railway staff received from the Minister?” Sir, it is very easy to reply to that question, and the hon. member knows as well as I do what the reply is. The railwaymen in South Africa have received more during the past ten years from the present Minister of Transport by way of improvements to their conditions of service, their wages and salaries, than in any other period in the history of the S.A. Railways. The hon. member comes here and says that the reason why the Minister refuses to make up his mind about the request for increased wages is the fact that an election is due to take place on 24 March. Mr. Speaker, what audacity on the part of the hon. member to make that statement here! The truth is that it is because of the fact that there is going to be an election on the 24th that the Opposition are raising this hullabaloo here. The Opposition have apparently taken upon themselves the task and the functions of the staff associations to put forward wage demands to the Minister, and then the hon. member comes along and says that the Opposition believe that the leaders of the railway staff associations are responsible people. Mr. Speaker, they do not believe that; they have no confidence in the leaders of the staff associations. They are trying to take upon themselves the work of the leaders of the staff associations. They believe that the leaders of the staff associations are not man enough to put forward their requests to the hon. Minister. And then the hon. member actually comes along and says that the United Party believe that the leaders of the railway staff associations are responsible people. The United Party are obviously trying to pose here as the friend of the railwaymen, and the reason why they are doing so is that there is an election in the offing. But what sort of railwaymen’s friend are they? Are they not the people who have been pleading year after year in this House for greater relaxations of the Motor Transportation Act; are they not the people who have been pleading here year after year for exemptions to be given to private road hauliers so that they can convey more and more goods by road? What would that have meant? It would have meant a serious reduction in railway revenue. But at the same time they are also the people who ask for increased wages for the staff. They do not pause to ask themselves where the revenue is to come from if the Minister grants the request for increased wages. But they went even further; whenever tariffs have been raised they have always said that the railway user is being overtaxed unnecessarily. But, Sir, but for the fact that those tariffs were increased it would simply have been impossible to pay the railwayman the salary or the wage that he is receiving at the present time, and wage increases either to-day or at some future date would have been entirely out of the question. Sir, it was this same Opposition who strenuously opposed the 10 per cent increase in tariffs in 1962 and who argued that that increase was unnecessary; that it would only push up the cost of living. But if tariffs had not been increased at that time by 10 per cent, it would have been impossible to improve the working conditions of the railway staff and to increase their wages and salaries by nearly R60,000,000 per annum as has been done over the past few years. The Opposition now come along and suddenly plead for the salaries and wages of the railway staff to be increased, but what do they say in the same breath; what did the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) advocate here the other day? His plea was that the railway system should be so developed that it always has an excessive carrying capacity so that the Railways will at all times be able to cope with peak traffic. What would that mean? It would mean the investment of much more capital than is being invested in the Railways at the present time; it would bring about an increased burden of interest for the Railways, an interest burden which would have to be defrayed from current revenue. An excessive carrying capacity would simply have a detrimental effect upon railway revenue. But these are the people who come here and plead that salaries and wages should be increased. They fail to tell the railwaymen, however, what would happen if the wage increases advocated by them in this House today were granted, or what would have happened if the increases advocated by them in the past had been granted. It would have involved the Railways in such a loss of revenue that it would not even have been possible to maintain the present wage and salary structure of the railwaymen, and wage increases now or in the future would have been out of the question. These are the people who come and pose here as the friends of the railwaymen. Sir, the railwaymen might well say, “Save me from my friends!” Mr. Speaker, the Opposition want to have it both ways; on the one hand they want to reduce tariffs; they want to grant more exemptions to road hauliers to make inroads upon the revenue of the Railways, and on the other hand they want to increase wages and salaries. Goodness only knows where the money is to come from; I suppose they think the money will descend from Heaven like manna.

I want to make use of this opportunity to deny very definitely and emphatically that any hon. member on this side of the House has at any stage expressed any opinion with regard to the requests from the staff for wage increases. As has been correctly said, we regard that as the task and the function of the railway staff associations; we have confidence in them. Not only do we have confidence in them but we also have sufficient confidence in the hon. the Minister to believe that he will see to it that the railway staff are given not only what is fair and just but also what is possible. Where hon. members on this side referred to the rise in the cost of living and compared it with salary and wage increases, they did so in reply to the Opposition’s accusation that the hon. the Minister of Transport had neglected his duty towards the railwaymen and that he had neglected them. We did so to indicate that the hon. the Minister had done his duty towards the railwaymen and that wage increases had kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. But in making this comparison we certainly did not want to suggest that the railwaymen did not have the right to ask for increased wages or salaries. Even though wage and salary increases have kept pace with the rise in the cost of living, we nevertheless realize that there has been a rise in the standard of living and that that higher standard of living makes greater and greater demands upon the pockets of people. We realize that with this higher standard of living people are finding it difficult, on their present salaries or wages, to meet all their obligations. As a matter of fact, that is also what the hon. the Prime Minister specifically stated in the same speech in which the Opposition now allege that he suggested that wages were going to be pegged. The Prime Minister specifically said that one naturally sympathized with those who were struggling, with the wage-earners, and he then went on to say that this yearning for increased wages was due to the fact that people were anxious to maintain their higher standard of living. There has never been any question of pegging of wages.

We on this side of the House and the railwaymen of South Africa have confidence in the hon. the Minister of Transport. The hon. the Minister of Transport has expressed his thanks to the railwaymen of this country in a tangible way in the past. We know that he will also do everything that he possibly can in the future provided it does not clash with the interests of South Africa, which at the same time also happens to be the interests of the railwaymen. The hon. the Minister has never broken his word to the railwaymen. I want to remind the House of what happened a few years ago at the time of the election in 1961. At that time there were also requests from the staff for increased wages. What was the hon. the Minister’s reaction? He said: “I cannot tell you at this stage whether I will be able to afford the increased wages; we will see later in the course of the year whether railway finances will permit the granting of increases.” What happened at that time? The whole of the Opposition went from platform to platform exploiting this statement and telling the railwaymen of South Africa, “The Minister will never increase your salaries; he will simply leave you in the lurch”. What happened? The election was held and after the election the Minister put the Opposition to shame by carrying out his promise towards the staff and by giving them the increases for which they had asked.

There was a reason for it.

There was a reason, but that was after the election. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister does not act like the Opposition; he is not out to catch votes before an election; he has too high a regard for the railwaymen to do so. He thinks too much of them as to seek to create the impression that he is trying to buy their votes by means of pay increases. I only wish the Opposition would have the same high regard for the railwaymen, but they have such a low opinion of the railwaymen of South Africa that they believe that they can buy his vote by putting forward pleas and requests here for wage increases.

The hon. member for Turffontein seriously objects to our statement that they want to relax the colour bar. He says that they have never advocated a relaxation of the colour bar in the railway service. But if the hon. member for Turffontein looks at the speeches made by the hon. member for Yeoville, if he looks at what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville during the last recess, he will see that one of the solutions put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville to the hon. the Minister to overcome the staff shortage was that he should relax the colour bar in the railway service.

He did not say that.

Oh yes, very definitely. The hon. member for Yeoville even boasted that the United Party’s policy of economic integration was now being applied. Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein is now suddenly very perturbed about the staff shortage in the railway service. But when the question was very pertinently put to them during these debates whether they wanted non-Whites to be employed as firemen to overcome the shortage, they failed to reply. Sir, there is a shortage of station foremen and station-masters. Does the United Party want non-Whites to be employed as station foremen and stationmasters? What is their reply? No, now they are as silent as the grave.

The hon. member for Turffontein complains that the Minister has not told the House what he is going to do in respect of the problem of staff shortages. Sir, as the hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Turffontein the other day, he cannot manufacture people. The hon. the Minister cannot go and erect a factory to manufacture the staff he requires. He cannot take people by the scruff of their necks and force them to come and work in the railway service. There is a shortage of engineers. There are no non-Whites available for appointment as engineers. Must non-Whites be appointed as engineers? Is that what the United Party wants?

What are you going to do to solve this problem?

Sir, it is easy to criticize. It is easy to come along here with superficial generalities, as the hon. member for Turffontein did here to-day. I knew …

You are running away now.

… that they would run away from this so-called relaxation of the colour bar. During the second-reading debate we had the ridiculous situation that on two occasions the hon. member for Yeoville appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, to inquire whether the hon. the Minister of Transport could discuss labour matters in this debate. But it was the hon. member for Yeoville himself who in the first instance raised the question of the relaxation of the colour bar in this House. When he got his reply, when he got a beating, then he started squealing, he could not take it.

Where do you get hold of that?

From the lips of the hon. member for Yeoville—and if the hon. member had listened to the hon. member for Yeoville he would have heard the same thing.

The United Party always tell us that their policy is “the rate for the job”, but are they going to apply this policy of theirs to the Railways? Of course they are not going to apply it. They do not even apply it in the Province in which there is a United Party-controlled Provincial Council, namely Natal. They do not even apply the principle of the rate for the job in Natal. What is the use of having a policy if you cannot apply it or if you refuse to apply it? The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—expressed great indignation recently over the fact that Britons had come from Britain to South Africa to come and work here as shunters at a wage of R100 per month. He said that there were many Indians who were prepared to do this work at R50 per month. I do not hold it against the hon. member for Umlazi that he adopts that attitude. There we have a person who is faithful to the policy of his party. Like his party he is inconsistent as far as their policy of “the rate for the job” is concerned, but, again like his party, he is very consistent as far as their policy of cheap labour in the Railway Service is concerned. After all, it was former Minister Jagger who retrenched more than 17,000 Whites and appointed non-Whites in their place.

The United Party are keen to create the impression—the hon. member for Turffontein again did so this afternoon—that there is something seriously wrong with railway planning; they want to create the impression that railway planning cannot keep pace with the economic growth of the country and that consequently the Railways are unable to keep pace with the economic development of this country. But what would have happened if the Minister and the Railways had had to rely on the judgment of the Opposition with regard to the economic prospects of South Africa? In his recent annual report the General Manager of Railways described the terrific, fantastic economic growth in South Africa as an economic upheaval. Sir, did the Opposition foresee this economic upheaval? Did they display any vision as to what was going to happen to our economy in this country? Mr. Speaker, you are as familiar as I am with the jeremiads that we have had here from hon. members on the other side, the jeremiads that we had in this House year after year from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson.) The Opposition prophesied the most terrible consequences for South Africa if Government policy was implemented. If all the economic disasters predicted by the Opposition had actually overtaken South Africa, then by this time everybody in the Republic would have succumbed to hunger. Mr. Speaker, can you believe it that these are the same people who now come along with the charge against the hon. the Minister that he did not have sufficient vision to plan for the enormous economic upsurge in South Africa! If I had not witnessed it myself I would never have believed it.

The hon. member talked about planning. It is all very well to talk about vision and longterm planning, but it is time hon. members opposite told us more specifically what they mean and what they understand by long-term planning on the Railways. Let them tell us on what bases long-term planning must take place. The Schumann Committee describes in detail, for the benefit of the hon. member for Turffontein, on what basis planning is undertaken on the Railways at the present time. I want to ask the hon. member what more can be done; what more can be done than the Railways are already doing as far as planning is concerned? In a country of vast distances such as South Africa, with its concentration of people in the cities, one can plan the railway system to the best of one’s ability but as soon as the country experiences an economic boom there will always be bottlenecks for the simple reason that one cannot expect private concerns, long in advance, to divulge their contemplated expansion programmes. It is these unforeseen programmes of expansion and development, which are known to nobody except the people directly concerned, which usually lead to bottle-necks in the railway system. If hon. members opposite had suggested ways and means of enabling the hon. the Minister and his Management to read the thoughts of private entrepreneurs as far as the future is concerned, then at least they would have suggested something practical.

They complain about planning. During the period 1945-50 the average annual expenditure on capital expansion was R48,100,000; during the next five years, from 1950 to 1955, the average was R51,900,000; from 1955 to 1960 it was R116,400,000, and during the past five years, up to 1965, the average was R81,000,000. To-day we are being asked to vote R120,000,000 in this Budget. But the hon. member for Turffontein complains and says that that is inadequate for the capital development of the Railways. I want to point out to him that this sum of R 120,000,000 which is being spent this year is 67 per cent more than the average amount of R72,200,000 spent over the past 20 years. Does he think that this amount is inadequate or that it is being wrongly spent? If he can show that it is being spent wrongly, then it goes without saying that the important expansions proposed by him must be based on facts; he cannot simply come along with superficial generalities. If he is able to show that the Minister is planning his expansion programmes incorrectly, then he will at least be putting forward constructive criticism; he will then at least be getting away from the generalities that we always have from him when he talks about planning.

Now that the Minister is spending R520,000,000 on capital expansion on the Railways and proposes to spend the whole of that amount in the year which lies ahead of us, the hon. member accuses the Minister of insufficient planning, but six years ago when the hon. the Minister spent about R 116,000,000 on capital expansion on the Railways, hon. members on the other side made the accusation against the Minister that he was putting too much capital into railway development. To-day hon. members opposite tell us that the Railways must be developed and planned in such a way that they will be able to cope with all peak traffic in the future. What will happen then in times of depression when the Railways have an excessive carrying capacity and that excessive carrying capacity has a detrimental effect on Railway revenue and on Railway finance? The Opposition, the very people who to-day come along with the charge against the hon. the Minister that there is a so-called transportation crisis, would then be the first people to accuse the Minister of having landed the Railways in a financial crisis. That is the cost of accusation that will then be made against the hon. the Minister if he does to-day what they apparently want him to do.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Turffontein that when he talks about planning he should put forward constructive thoughts and suggestions. He must simply not criticize the present planning and come along with the general statement that there is a lack of planning on the Railways. Any monkey can put forward inconsistent criticism which is based entirely on present-day circumstances. But unfortunately that does not help the Railways. Fortunately it does not help the United Party either.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has advanced a number of arguments which I think deserve attention. In the first place, as has become customary in the discussion on the Budget, he accused us of trying to catch votes for the coming election as far as staff matters were concerned. I think it is a question of the Government itself standing behind the door and now they are also looking for us there. I think the difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they cannot distinguish between those matters in respect of which they always catch votes and those matters which are of general importance to a large section of the people of South Africa. I want hon. members to remember that when I, get up and plead for the railwayman I am not doing so with a view to the coming election but with a view to the railwaymen of South Africa really having a cause which is worth pleading.

The second point made by the hon. member was that over the past ten years the staff have received more than ever before. Apart from statistics the fundamental fact remains that in spite of all these increases to which the hon. member has referred there are still thousands of people on the Railways who are deeply dissatisfied with their income. I think that is the decisive factor. Then I wish to add for the edification of the hon. member—I may be wrong but I do not think so—that the hon. the Minister has never yet given a salary increase, over and above the normal increases, for which the railwaymen have not asked and for which they have not fought in some respects. That, I think, is the decisive factor. In spite of the glorious position in which the railwayman is alleged to find himself the fact remains that the people are knocking daily at the door of the Minister, as it were, in an attempt to get their position improved.

The hon. member also stated that we had suggested to the Minister to abolish the colour bar. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misstated the case completely. We have explained our attitude over and over again to the hon. the Minister. We suggested to him that he should try to push in the non-Whites at the bottom and in that way try to push the Whites higher. The fundamental principle is one of industrial democracy and we stand by that. We stated clearly to the hon. the Minister that he must not tell us he is going to do so but that what we wanted was this: When he appointed non-Whites to any post in the service of the Railways he must only do so after consultation and with the approval of the staff associations of the Railways. The hon. Minister then said: “Supposing the people say they do not want it? Supposing the staff associations say they do not want non-Whites to enter.”? The hon. the Minister then asked what the position would be. But I cannot believe that. I believe that when the railwayman of South Africa realizes the seriousness of the situation, when he realizes that not only the Railways but South Africa will, in the long run, suffer a manpower shortage, he would reveal the necessary sense of responsibility and sound judgment to give the Minister the green light. But to accuse us of wanting to abolish the colour bar is to misrepresent the truth entirely. I want to add that I do not think any Minister has ever employed as many non-Whites in the Railway service as precisely the present Minister. I do not think we can get away from that fact.

Let us return to the debate itself. When you think of the Budget, Sir, and all the discussions which have preceded it I think I am right in saying that two big question marks hang over the Budget itself. Not one of those question marks has so far been cleared up and both have to be explained if the Budget is to to through.

The first matter I wish to touch upon is the question of the Schumann Report. I think this is an extremely important matter and I am surprised that we have heard so little so far about the principles involved in this matter. The Schumann Report suggests radical changes to the tariff structure of the Railways. They suggest a brand new principle, namely, large-scale subsidies by the Central Government to adjust the tariffs. It is a report which, if accepted—nobody knows if it will be— would cost the State, agriculture and other facets of our national economy millions of rand. Various hon. members have already spoken about the agricultural aspect but nobody has so far said anything about the other facets, such as commerce and industry, as far as the tariffs are concerned. We think of it as a report which, as far as the suburban passenger services are concerned, will perhaps take millions of rand out of the pockets of the passengers if it is accepted.

The Minister cannot tell us that he has not yet considered the matter. It is true that the hon. the Minister told us he wanted to give commerce and industry an opportunity up to the end of the year of considering the matter but the fundamental fact is this that, when we read the Minister’s Budget speech, we realize that he has very definitely given attention to the commission and the possible implications of the report. He told us clearly that as a result of preliminary calculations he had already made provision to reduce his surplus by a globular sum of R6,000,000. That is a big amount, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister did not tell us in respect of which items that reduction was going to be made. The hon. the Minister did not utter one word as to which facets of the report he was going to accept. This is a serious and important matter. It is of the greatest importance that the Minister should have raised this matter in his Budget speech and that this House should have had the right of discussing that report. The hon. the Minister has not given us that opportunity. I want to put it this way that I think before the hon. the Minister accepts or rejects this report, or accepts or rejects it in part, it is of the utmost importance that this House be given the opportunity of discussing the matter. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of the utmost importance. I do not think this House can shift its responsibility in regard to this matter on to the shoulders of the Minister without any further ado. This is the place where the money has to be voted. I think we have a responsibility to fulfill towards the people outside. When the Minister goes ahead and deals with this matter on his own he is by-passing this House. I think we have a well-founded case. This question as far as the Schumann Report is concerned has not been disposed of during the Budget debate. I think in this respect the hon. the Minister owes the House a more detailed and concise reply.

There is a second question mark above this Budget. You can do nothing about it. The fact remains that this question of a manpower shortage is important. The Railways suffer from an extremely hampering influence; the Minister’s own Budget speech was interspersed with references to the manpower shortage. The Minister would surely not have been so serious about the matter had it not been so serious. Only the other day we read in the Press that as a result of the manpower shortage as many as seven trains could not be sent out in the Free State on one day. Surely this position cannot continue. If the present tempo of economic development were to continue it is obvious that the time will arrive when the manpower shortage on the Railways will be of such a nature that it will simply be impossible for the Railways to perform its functions efficiently. Surely it is not only the Railways who suffer; it is the Railways themselves and also South Africa as such because of the dominant role the Railways play in our transport system. The Minister agrees but what do we find? The Minister told us the other day he could not manufacture people. We agree with the hon. Minister. We appreciate his problems. We have already told him that but we did add that he as one of the responsible Ministers of State could not escape the blame which attached to him in this connection.

Blame which attached to him?

The manpower shortage on the Railways. The Minister cannot get away from that responsibility. Together with the Government he is responsible for having stopped one of the most important steps ever taken, namely immigration, to augment the manpower in South Africa. We tell the hon. the Minister again that we are aware of his problems. It is true that we blame the Minister for certain defects but we are aware of the problems. We suggested specific steps. I personally suggested steps that could be taken but hon. members said it was not worth while considering them. The fact of the matter is this that I do not think the hon. the Minister —I say this with due respect—is doing his duty when he comes to this House and says: “I realize there is a shortage; I am aware of all its implications but you cannot expect me to do anything about it; I cannot manufacture people in factories.”

Can you?

That is the state of mind we have to contend with, Sir. We suggested to the Minister that he should consider employing non-Whites. If the hon. the Minister gives favourable consideration to the suggestion of the Opposition in this connection it will not only assist the Railways; it will assist the White workers; it will assist the non-Whites and it will, in the long run, assist South Africa. Our suggestion is self-evident. We again want to state unequivocally that no non-White should be taken on in any position unless the Minister and the staff associations see eye to eye on the matter. I repeat that I cannot accept that the staff associations will refuse. If they realize the seriousness of the situation they will not refuse. If they realize that the fate of South Africa and their personal fate are at issue I do believe they will have the necessary sense of responsibility and good judgment to say to the hon. the Minister that they are prepared to assist him.

You want to force it down their throats.

Surely it is not a question of forcing it down their throats. It is simply a question of common sense. I cannot see how we can accept these Estimates while these two question marks remain. The question of staff shortages must be cleared up. Surely the hon. the Minister does not suggest that he hopes there will be a decline in the tempo of economic development? If it goes on at the present rate the day will dawn as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow when the hon. the Minister will find himself in serious difficulties. Those difficulties will lead to trains coming to a standstill …

The banks will close!

The hon. member says the banks will close. He knows there are already trains to-day that cannot run due to the staff shortage. That is already happening. We want to know from the Minister what he is going to do and not a single member opposite has so far come forward with any positive suggestion. All the suggestions we have had so far have come from this side of the House. However, the suggestions we have made were met with political prejudice, were analysed as such and not one has been accepted. We therefore retain the status quo, Mr. Speaker. No improvement. No improvement whatsoever and the serious position to which the hon. the Minister has referred remains exactly as it was. Can you believe it, Sir, that when we are dealing with such a serious matter as the manpower shortage hon. members opposite get up one after the other and try to make politics out of it. Once again they have done nothing else than to make party politics out of the whole non-White question. The crux of the matter is simply this that hon. members opposite can think of nothing except party politics and the interests of the Nationalist Party. They continually place the interests of South Africa second.

Look in the mirror when you speak.

I again put it to the Minister: As far as I am concerned two question marks hang over the Budget and not one of those question marks has been explained by either the Minister or a member on his side. We have had no further clarity. I do not think therefore that these Estimates have been properly handled or that the Minister, I say this in all humility, will be doing his duty unless the two question marks which have arisen in this debate are removed.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) for having once again made the same type of speech as the speeches we have had from previous speakers on that side of the House. They doubt everything the Minister and members on this side have said, although members on this side have substantiated what they have said by statistics. The hon. member who has just sat down said that railway staff and railway officials had never yet received a normal increase unless they had forced it from the Minister. That is not so. During the course of this debate I specifically mentioned the figures to show that the Minister has from time to time of his own accord given increases and not as a result of insistence on the part of members opposite.

We know that.

But the hon. member who has just sat down denied it.

Less than 5 per cent over the years.

No, it is not as little as that. From 1951 to 1964, a matter of 13 years, the Minister has given them nearly R 100,000,000. Do you see, Sir, hon. members opposite do not want to hear that and they doubt the truth of everything that has been said here. The railwaymen will again receive increases when the time is opportune. But with a view to the provincial elections members now say that wages are being frozen. Nothing of the sort. Various speakers on this side of the House have stated clearly that there was no question of freezing wages. But an abnormal wage increase at a time of a slight inflationary tendency is undesirable. But on the other hand if it is desirable to increase wages the Government will not hesitate to do so. Hon. members simply refuse to realize that we are faced with a manpower shortage problem. It is understandable that there should be a shortage of staff in the present economic position obtaining in our country.

What are you going to do in this connection?

The reply is that you must try to help yourself. It is hopeless to import people to solve the manpower shortage in South Africa as far as the Railways are concerned. We imported shunters but they left as quickly as they could. They do not want to live in the houses the South African Railways offer them; they do not want to work for the wages the S.A. Railways offer them. They do not want to work under the conditions prevailing here. They are accustomed to the conditions prevailing in their countries of origin. They maintain conditions are better there. Has the Minister not done enough as far as housing on the Railways is concerned? And he will still do more. We know what the housing position on the Railways was in 1948 when this Government took over. It was scandalous.

Ah!

Yes “Ah”. Did the hon. member ever go to the trouble of inspecting them in those days. I inspected them and I came across houses where there were only one little table and a single chair in one room. I am not ashamed to-day to enter a railwayman’s house.

Many are still in that condition.

I accept that the old ones are not all in such a good condition as those which are being built today but good houses are being built and the people receive a wage which enables them to furnish their homes well. That is why I cannot understand why hon. members make the speeches they do make. They only want to sow dissatisfaction amongst the South African railway workers because of the election. I want to repeat specifically for the edification of the hon. member for Maitland: If they really advocate the cause of the railway workers in our country as they would have us believe, why do the railwaymen not vote for the United Party? I think that is the test as far as the whole matter is concerned. If the United Party gives everything to these people why do they not vote for the United Party. I shall support the man who sees to my welfare; I shall stand by him. The United Party allege that they want to see to the welfare of the railwaymen but the latter do not vote for them.

As far as the Schumann Report is concerned surely that report has not yet been considered. Surely the Minister must have an opportunity of studying it and the United Party surely want a chance of discussing it. Surely the opportunity will arise.

When?

Time does not permit us to discuss the Schumann Report at this stage. Have hon. member already studied it?

Yes, I know what it says.

I would be the last person to maintain to-day that the position of the railway workers is such that they need not ask for anything more. But on the other hand I realize that since 1948 a tremendous amount has been done for them; practically as much as the country can afford. We must not think of this wonderful surplus of the Minister’s. What do hon. members want to do with it? The surplus is utilized wisely in order to strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund. We are not in favour of increasing tariffs. That is why the fund is being strengthened so that it will not be necessary to increase tariffs. As far as the staff shortage is concerned everything possible is being done to overcome that. Greater use is also made to-day of non-White labour than in the past where that labour can be properly utilized.

As far as non-White labour is concerned the hon. member would be the first person to complain if he went to the information counter in the Paul Sauer building and is attended to by somebody who does not belong to his race in such a way that he has to complain to the Minister about the service. What is the position to-day at the information offices, in the ticket offices at all those places of the S.A. Railways where you obtain information and assistance? What is the service like? I cannot but pay the highest tribute to those people. Why do you now want to create a source of friction? Give the Bantu or the Coloured an opportunity of serving his own people then you will obviate the friction which we do not want.

I can honestly say that I represent a large railway constituency. I get complaints from the railwaymen in my constituency but they are not of such a serious nature as those I received when I came there for the first time. Why are the complaints less serious? Because those in control are sympathetic; the Minister, the General Manager and the management give all their attention to the railway workers. I do not think it is fair on the part of the United Party to try to create unrest and practically to act like agitators amongst the railway workers by trying to belittle a service they are performing in an excellent way.

I was very sorry, when I pleaded with the Minister for a minimum wage of R2 per day for Coloured railway workers, to hear from the Minister that this was not possible. In all humility I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot change his whole approach to the matter somewhat. The hon. the Minister said that if he raised the salaries of Coloured railway labourers, he would have to raise the salaries of railway workers generally. If the Minister sets out from the standpoint, which is the real position, that the Coloured worker has hitherto received too little remuneration compared to the Whites, then the Minister will be able to consider increasing the wages of the Coloured worker in the Railway Service without it being necessary for him to increase all wages throughout. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem that particularly in the Western Cape, and more particularly in Cape Town, he wants to replace the Bantu railway workers by Coloureds if possible, in line with Government policy. Now I am absolutely convinced that as far as the Bantu dock workers are concerned the Coloureds cannot do that work at the same wages. It is hard work and they cannot keep it up because they are unable to buy the necessary food, and in comparison with the Bantu they are underfed. Their food costs so much more than that of the Bantu. I do not want to describe here what the Bantu eats, but the Coloured eats the same food as the White man, and he cannot afford to buy the food which will enable him to do that work. I know that this is one of the Minister’s problems, that if he employs Coloureds to work in the docks, they cannot continue doing the work as the result of physical weakness and ailments due to under-nourishment.

I want to come back to the few remarks I made a couple of days ago in regard to the labour shortages on the Railways. I am glad that the hon. the Minister said that he would even consider appointing Coloured shunters on the Railways, provided the staff associations agreed to it. I have thought about the matter and the question has arisen in my mind: If this shortage exists and the Railways are not able to transport the traffic offered, with the result that the economy of the country suffers, whose responsibility is that? Is it then the task of the staff associations to get the necessary workers to do that work which will enable the Railways to transport the traffic and the passengers offered? If it is the duty of the staff associations to find the workers, then I can understand that the staff associations must agree in regard to whom the Minister is or is not to employ. But that is surely not the case. The staff associations cannot find the workers for the Minister. I do not know whether the staff associations assisted when the Minister sent a mission overseas to try to recruit workers. I do not see in what respect they could have assisted, because it was not their duty or their function. They perform a necessary task in the sense that they are there as the watchdogs to guard over the interests of the railway workers whom they represent. But in fact it is the Minister’s duty to try to solve the problem, and if it is his duty to ensure that the Railways can transport the traffic offered, so that the Railways may keep pace with the expanding economy, then surely the Minister cannot allow the staff associations to prescribe whom he may appoint in the Railway Service. I personally do not believe that the staff associations would be so foolish as to hamper the economy of the country. But I do not think that it should be made a public condition that before the Minister can employ certain people it is first necessary to obtain the consent of the staff associations. I repeat that this is the Minister’s task. It is in no way the task of the staff associations to prescribe to what extent our national economy may expand. The Minister has during this Session in fact set an example when he discussed the position of the air technicians. Much was said here as to how the Minister had assumed powers to restrict that trade union. But to tell the truth, my sympathies were with the hon. the Minister, because last year I personally experienced how many thousands upon thousands of passengers suffered inconvenience, and we all know what tremendous losses there were, not only to the Airways but also in the private sector as the result of the fact that passengers could not be transported. Although those organizations perform a wonderful and an essential task, viz. to act as the representatives of the members of that organization, I feel that they may go too far and that the Minister should take action in such a case. I do not think that he need ignore these associations in other respects, but it is not necessary for them to be elevated to the status of the Minister of Railways if such a decision has to be taken.

Nor do I hope that the hon. the Minister will take any notice of the political game we have seen being played in this House in regard to this matter during this debate. Unfortunately there is no speaker on either side of the House who is in the position to be objective in regard to the matter. I think it is quite obviously true that speakers on the Government side are in the position that if they approve the Minister’s appointment of Coloureds in posts now held by Whites but which cannot be filled, they may be subjected to criticism in their own constituencies. We have just heard the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) on the opposite side of the House criticizing the Minister, and he used the word “blame” because there is a shortage of labour in the Railway Service, but nobody had the courage to say: “Draw from the available manpower resources, without having to go overseas to seek labour”. The Minister was criticized for not having recruited immigrants. The Minister sent a mission, but he cannot find the immigrants to do that work, and quite a number of those who were recruited are on their way back and were begging lifts in Cape Town to return to England, and there a lot of things are being said against South Africa (whether all of it is true I do not know) and all kinds of stories are told abroad. Let us rather make use of the sources of manpower we have in South African and train the necessary people to do that work. They have the capacity to be trained and hon. members know it, although they do not have the courage to say so, and I want to associate myself in all honesty with what the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said a few days ago.

Is she your friend now?

It is not a question of friendship. If a person tells the truth about a matter, then I agree with him. She said, “Let the Minister take the bull by the horns and do so because there is no reason why he should accede to unreasonable demands of labour”. Because of that the hon. member for Houghton was accused by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) that “the hon. member for Houghton is talking as if there should be no consultation at all between the trade unions and the employer, who happens to be in this case the Minister.” He further alleged “that she is destroying that consultation.” I do not believe that anything like that was ever said, and I consulted the Hansard report, but I quite agree with it and I do not believe that the trade unions will be so unreasonable. In any case, I am not going to perform an egg-dance in this regard. I think it has been proved clearly that these people have the capacity to be trained. More than 90 per cent of the artisans in our building industry, the masons and carpenters, for as long as I can remember, have been Coloured, and they can also do that work on the Railways. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist in the clear attempt being made by the Government to raise the educational and socio-economic standards of the Coloureds, and the Minister can make a tremendous contribution if he creates the opportunity for these people to be trained to fill the posts in the Railway Service for which he can find no White people in South Africa or overseas. Let him, if necessary, in consultation with the trade unions, do so, but there should be no demand from their side that they should first approve of it.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that I had not accepted the Opposition’s suggestions to meet the transport crisis existing at present. I deny most emphatically that there is a transport crisis. I think it is the most arrant nonsense to make such a statement. There is only one new point that has been raised. The hon. member said: “Why does the Minister not use the unskilled Whites, the casual Whites in grades where there is a shortage of manpower?” I can say that all these unskilled Whites have been approached directly, those who are capable and who have the necessary qualifications and they have also been approached by their staff organizations with the offer to be promoted to graded positions, but they have refused, they do not want to be promoted.

For the rest no new points have been raised. We have had yet another repetition of what has been said during former stages of this debate. I regard repetition as tedious. I have no intention of repeating my arguments.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I would like to sum up our approach to this clause and our objections to it. This clause, Sir, deals with the appointment of inspectors, and it is now amended and the conditions under which it applies are so changed, that I think we might well set out the picture as we see it: Previously the appointment of inspectors was related entirely to the administration of the Group Areas Development Act and dealt entirely with the development of group areas. Now with this Bill that has changed and the area with which the inspector deals and where he has these powers, is considerably broadened. In other words, he can now exercise these powers in any area which is a designated area, in other words, any area which the hon. the Minister for the purposes of this Act may designate as an area for the operation of the Act. Let me sum up that it means any area in which the Minister decides community development should take place. Now “community development” is a very wide term. We have already got in this Act a new term “urban renewal scheme” which we do not quite understand, and we have already asked the Minister to define that. This clause would make it appear that we need a further definition, that we need to define precisely what “community development” is, because in terms of this Act, I think the term is so wide, that it means here, with this clause, that an inspector can go virtually to any area, and we do not want to extend the powers of inspection to such an extent. Another thing which we want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister is that previously inspectors could be appointed after consultation with the chief inspector referred to in sub-section (1), but this Act now has changed that and the Secretary of the department is in a position “to authorize in writing any member of the Board or officer in the Department of Community Development to appoint in writing any member or officer in this department”. In other words, there is an ease in respect of the appointment of inspectors which did not exist before. Formerly an inspector was appointed in consultation with the chief inspector, and the chief inspector was a man who, under the terms of the Act, was appointed directly by the Minister. The Minister in terms of this clause was the person who appointed the chief inspector, and therefore the position was obviously better. The other inspectors were appointed after consultation with that chief inspector, who was in fact directly responsible to the Minister. Now the secretary can delegate his powers for the appointment of inspectors to any member of the Board or officer in the said department. We do not like that a bit, because the area in which this Bill will operate is now extended to such an extent that it becomes applicable in any designated area which community development is going to be applied. We do not like the looseness of the application of “community development”. This brings back to us the need for a definition of an “urban renewal scheme”, and I believe that these particular objections must be resolved here, because these inspectors can enter people’s premises, not only in group areas or slum areas. These provisions should be tightened so that the ordinary residents in areas into which the Minister has decided to go, probably to improve those areas, should be safe as far as their rights are concerned.

I have indicated previously that one of the safeguards in the principal Act, so far as an inspector or an inspection was concerned, was the consultation with somebody in a position of authority, such as the chief inspector, before the inspection was undertaken. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that to some extent the hon. Minister agreed that the widening of the area of inspection, and on top of that the complete disregard, in terms of the amended clause, of the consultation with the chief inspector, was undesirable. That was the impression I gained from the Minister some days ago when we discussed this matter at the first stage.

The virtue, if any, of the Group Areas Act was that there was a definition of a “group area”; that there was therefore a limitation of the physical area or areas in which an inspection in terms of the Act could take place; there was furthermore the proviso for consultation with a senior inspector—and all that, when set against the situation that is created in terms of this clause, as amended now, indicates that the whole of the country, the whole of South Africa, as to any area which the Minister decides through his Department, through the Secretary, requires an inspection of any portion—a site, any erf, any house, any business premises—will become the Minister’s oyster. In other words, the whole of South Africa, comes under the jurisdiction of this particular clause, as amended. I put it to the hon. the Minister that however wide he wants his powers to be, I doubt whether he wants the power as wide as is now provided in this clause. I hope that in due course the hon. Minister will say whether I am right or wrong in assuming that he does not really require the world, the entire Republic of South Africa as his oyster, for the purpose of an inspection. Furthermore, there is in sub-section (b) provision for an inspector to question any person found in or upon such premises. Any person who may be fortuitously there as a visitor, very casually and very briefly, who has absolutely no knowledge of the requirements of the Act, who has no knowledge of the reasons for the inspection, can also be questioned by the officer who will be appointed in terms of the clause. I emphasize that it can be an officer in the said Department, not necessarily an inspector trained for the job. I think we have pointed out before in connection with legislation brought forward by the hon. the Minister that the nomination of any officer of his Department could very well affect the most junior of junior clerks in that Department, and the Minister, at that time, did not deny that that was possible, because in terms of the Public Service Act, and in terms of normal procedure, any person employed by the State in the Department of Community Development is by definition an officer of the Department—which in practical terms means that if, for whatever reason, the Secretary or somebody acting on his authority should nominate a young fellow of 19 who happens to have worked in the Department for six months, and is performing the most menial of duties, he can then be appointed as an inspector and he can enter premises and carry out what appears to be a very delicate function, regardless of the fact that he has no experience or qualification for the work. Any person who owns property or occupies it can find himself in the invidious position of being questioned by such an officer, although that person happens to be there just fortuitously, has nothing to do with the matter, and knows nothing about the title deeds, books, records, etc. Yet the inspector is entitled to interrogate him. I think this is entirely unnecessary. I think it is carrying the powers of the Minister and of the Department to a degree where it can only cause embarrassment not only to a person fortuitously found on the premises, but also to the person nominated to make the inspection. There is, e.g., in (d) a provision that the same possibly unqualified inspector, can call upon any person to furnish any information at his disposal. The fortuitous visitor may well say that he has no information about this property, because he just came there to ask the way. The inspector does not necessarily have to believe this person if he says he has not the information, but just happens to be there as a visitor. This can also create a position which is both embarrassing and time-wasting. In fact, the whole of this clause dealing with the inspection and the way in which an inspector can be appointed is reminiscent of a play by J. B. Priestley called “An Inspector Calls”, and we will have this repeated throughout South Africa in the years to come, if this particular clause becomes law. We can have a situation where there are hundreds of thousands of inspections by unqualified people who are just wasting the time of the Department and the time of the persons upon whom they call. For all these reasons, and since I believe that the Minister himself has reservations about the powers conferred upon his Department under this clause, I think he should tell the Committee whether he agrees with the representations that have been made, and were again made to-day by the hon. member for Umlazi, and which I have now tried to amplify.

Hon. members opposite had to make a very wide detour in order to drag in this question of inspectors. The fact of the matter is that we already have these inspectors; we have about 25 inspectors in our employ, because an arrangement has been made with the police that the police will no longer do this work but that they will only come into the picture when contraventions of the Act take place. The object in appointing these inspectors is to collect essential information, of whatever kind it may be. In the first place, once an area has been proclaimed, a socio-economic survey has to be made; we have to determine how many persons there are who are the owners of affected properties; we have to determine what the income is so that we can provide them with the necessary housing, because we cannot provide people with housing which is not suitable for the income group into which they fall. We must enable these inspectors to make a survey to ascertain how many people are affected. This is essential information which is needed by the Board and the Department when it operates in an area of this kind. That is the purpose in appointing these inspectors. But these inspectors are not really just inspectors; they are also there to guide the public; they help members of the public to complete the necessary documents and to get to the regional offices so that they can be helped there. What they are doing therefore is not police work; it is essential preparatory and follow-up work to bring into operation the process for which this Act makes provision. As the Act reads at the moment it refers to a chief inspector, a post which no longer exists. These people are public servants who fall under the control of the Secretary of the Department. That is all that is intended here. In other words, these people will not be doing police work; they are not doing so at the moment. It is only when there is a contravention of the law that the matter is raised with the police and then the police come into the picture. We feel that this work is very essential in order to help these people and to obtain the necessary information and to ensure that the necessary process is put into operation. That is the whole purpose. Sir, the hon. member for Hospital made one point to which I have to reply again. He says that I am placing the entire country under my control, but surely the object is to demarcate the whole country into group areas. Did the hon. member think that that was not so? The greatest portion of the country has already been demarcated into group areas; there is only a very small portion of the country which has not yet been demarcated. In other words, the ideal is that we will eventually be able to apply this Act to all declared areas. His whole argument therefore falls away. He based his argument on a hypothetical case. I thought, however, that this change was an improvement because what it does is to confirm the existing position, the existing arrangement between the Public Service and the police that the police will not be used for this sort of work, and the information which will be gathered is absolutely essential information that the Board must have before it can take any action. In the absence of such information the Board would simply be acting haphazardly; surely that is not what hon. members would like to see. Before the Board acts it must know that the properties of so many people will be affected and that they fall within certain income groups. The whole object of this change is to make it possible for these people, who, as public servants, will fall under the control of the departmental head, to perform this essential work.

I can accept the Minister’s argument in so far as it applies to the implementation of group areas, but what I am not clear about and do not like is the fact that these inspectors can now go into areas other than slum areas or group areas. Let me say what I have in mind. If the Minister were to supply more houses in a particular city or town and decides on an urban renewal scheme for purposes of community development, and decides that he will go into an area which is already established and which is still showing a good standard of development and has not deteriorated into a slum area, why are these powers then necessary? I concede that in the case of group areas where these people have to be resettled, he must obviously have certain information.

Will you argue on the basis of District Six, which has not been proclaimed yet? What should we do there? Do you want us to use the police?

No, the Minister is making my point. I have conceded that in the case of a place like District Six, where you will have to re-house those people, he will obviously need information which he will have to get, and that is the only way he will get it. But then there are other areas.

But District Six is not a group area.

No, but it will be when you start to deal with it. The Minister will have to determine for what group it will have to be used.

How will you get that information?

Obviously District Six will be proclaimed a group area for one group or another. But what about an area, which is a good class area, where the Minister decides to go in for community development or an urban renewal scheme?

I will not develop communities which are already developed.

But this Bill provides for an urban renewal scheme and it also provides for community development. Now community development is an all-embracing term. It means anything that the Minister wants it to mean, because he designates the area. The type of area I have in mind is when he decides further to develop an existing area, which he can do in terms of this Bill. He can get all the information on that area without sending inspectors there, because the information is available.

Where is it available?

Well, surely those people pay rates and taxes so the area of their land is available to him and also the valuation of the properties.

Is that all we need?

No, I agree that is not all you need, but what else do you want to know? You want to know what the population is. You can get those figures from the local census—from the Department of Census and Statistics.

You are talking nonsense now. Do you want to tell me that if I go to Census and Statistics I can find that information about a part of District Six immediately?

I have already said that I am not discussing an area such as District Six. Take an area like Durban (North). I am sure the Minister could get 90 per cent of the information he needs without any difficulty at all, because it is available from the local authorities.

It is not available.

It is just a matter of opinion now. These statistics are available. I am not prepared to agree that if the Minister wants to develop such an area, he should send inspectors in there to find out whatever information he wants. Those powers are too wide. He can question any person found in or upon such premises, and he is not limited in his questioning. He can question them along any lines he likes, and I believe that this is an invasion of the rights of people.

Then the question comes up again which I raised before, the question of community development. What does community development mean in terms of this clause? It can mean anything, and that is the basis of my argument. If the Minister says he wants to go in there to determine how many people there are for purpose X or Y or Z, then we know what the object of this clause is, but at the moment he says it is for community development or it is for an urban renewal scheme, just because it is a designated area. What does he designate it for? We do not know what he is going to designate the area for, or why. So we cannot accept that in any area the Minister likes to designate, this type of inspection should be carried out, and I think the Minister should try and meet us in this respect.

I will now try to perform a duet with the Minister. I want to put this to him: assuming he does require these powers, would it not be feasible for some qualification or limitation to be placed on the officer of the Department who can be appointed as an inspector? We have first of all the right of the Secretary to appoint in writing any member of the Board. We have not said anything about that at all, because we assume that a member of the Community Development Board is a person of standing and experience, and with qualifications of some kind. Therefore I ask the Minister to separate “a member of the Board” from “an officer of the Department”. I must point out that it is possible to appoint any employee of the Department as an inspector even the most junior official.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the existing law.

With respect, in the existing law there was the proviso for consultation with the Chief Inspector. This being eliminated, it now leaves the field open for the appointment of an officer on whom no chief inspector can sit in judgment.

What about the departmental head?

I was going to ask the Minister to qualify this officer by saying, for example, that he should not be a person below a certain grade. We are not arguing against the appointment of an inspector who is a man of experience and has qualifications; we are trying to persuade the Minister not to leave the clause in its present form where any officer, any person employed by the Department, becomes an inspector. Therefore when the Minister replies, as I hope he will, to what was put to him by the hon. member for Umlazi, can he not improve the clause by saying that such an officer shall not be below a certain grade? In other words, let us take a clerk with at least six years’ experience who is a person of the age of 25 years, thus eliminating the possibility of a completely inexperienced junior official being appointed to make an inspection to the embarrassment of the Department, as well as of any person who may be on the premises.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

On Clause 23,

This clause contains what is called a long title. It virtually wraps up the most extraordinary powers that have hitherto been sought in regard to land development in this country. To sum it up as precisely as possible, it is a map of the Government’s interest in future land development. Here, in miniature form, is a map of the future of land development in South Africa, because it changes what is set out in the long title of the principal Act. If one looks at the principal Act one finds that it deals only with immovable property in group areas, i.e. areas defined under the Group Areas Act of 1957, the proper development of such areas, and the establishment of a board therefor. But this long title now wipes away that restrictive aspect of the content and purpose of the Act and it now endeavours to present a fresh picture of what the Minister wants to present to the House and the country as his new concept of urban development and urban renewal schemes and his new concept of encompassing the whole of the land of South Africa into a globular scheme of which he will be the sole director, and in respect of which he will make virtually the sole decisions. Now a great deal of time has been spent both in the second reading and in the Committee Stage to obtain some form of restriction of those powers, some form of reasonable perspective to these vast powers the Minister seeks. One often wonders why, if one reads of the achievements of local authorities hitherto, the Minister has thought fit to ask for this extraordinary vote of no confidence in the local authorities by seeking now to encompass in his own domain virtually a new conception, thereby taking the power of overriding all conditions of title and to incorporate all land and to do virtually as he pleases. The question we would like the Minister to answer, and perhaps to give us an assurance, is this. Does this not contain in fact the picture of a new pattern of land development in South Africa, dominated and controlled by the Government …

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

I am dealing with the long title.

Order! The hon. member is dealing with the whole Bill.

The long title sets out in concise form virtually the whole contents of the Bill.

Order! I want to point out that practically the whole Bill has been agreed to by this Committee. The hon. member must confine himself to the long title.

The long titles states “to provide for the development of certain areas …

Order! The hon. member must deal with the contents of Clause 23.

Sir, we are dealing here with Clause 23; I cannot deal with the preamble. This clause says: “The following is hereby substituted for the long title of the principal Act.” I must deal with the contents of this clause, surely.

The hon. member may continue.

I was pointing out the difference between this long title and the long title for which this long title is being substituted. I am pointing out that a very drastic change is being brought about in this long title. It is perfectly clear what this change is intended to cover. With all respect to your ruling, Sir, how else can one deal with this particular clause? Sir, we oppose this clause.

That is in order; the hon. member may oppose the clause.

I am giving my reasons for opposing this clause. Perhaps you might give me some guidance as to what line one can take …

Order! The hon. member may continue as long as he does not attack the principle which has already been accepted …

No, I am indicating what this long title encompasses in this concise form. We say that despite the fact that the principle has been agreed to, the Bill itself contains a principle which involves a revision of certain aspects of land development. The land title now deals with the whole thing in concise form.

Order! The long title merely sets out in general terms the purpose of the Bill as agreed to in the Committee Stage.

Is your view then, Sir, that the long title can only be debated per se.

Yes, and the principle which has already been agreed to cannot be debated at this stage.

I would like the hon. the Minister to know that we are completely opposed to the substitution of this long title for the long title contained in the principal Act, which we think conveyed the true picture with regard to the principal Act.

I want to say at the outset that nothing is further from my thoughts than an attack on the principle of this Bill, but I think one is entitled to relate the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, of the title of the Bill to the Bill itself which is not an attack on the principle. The question is whether this long title, although relatively short, is in fact a correct long title for this Bill. My first point is that if one looks at an Act, an Act called the Group Areas Act, in brief, one finds on examining the definition in this principal Act that it is very definite as compared with the definition of the object or the title of this particular Bill. I point to the Group Areas Act, No. 41 of 1950, where, for example, “group” is defined. Remember, Sir, that this is an amendment which changes the name of the principal Act.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along those lines.

Am I not entitled to compare this clause with the clause which it amends?

If the hon. member is dissatisfied with this clause he can move an amendment.

Without explaining why I wish to move the amendment?

This clause sets out the purposes of the Bill as outlined in the various clauses which have already been adopted.

Then I ask your ruling, Sir, on whether I can discuss whether this title is correctly worded to cover the principles dealt with in the Act?

Yes.

Sir, I do not know whether you have handed over your authority to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) who is usually very good at mumbling! Sir, this is a very puzzling point, and, believe me, I do not wish to be in conflict with you over this—but I should like to have your ruling as to whether or not any member is entitled to raise any point which arises out of the words contained in this clause, which becomes the long title of the principal Act, which is being amended here. The existing long title of the principal Act is very different from this.

Order! This clause gives in concise form the purposes of the Bill as outlined in the other clauses, and the hon. member cannot discuss anything which has already been accepted in the other clauses.

Very well, Sir. As far as this clause itself is concerned, the first line reads, “to provide for the development of certain areas”, certain areas, which presumably, up to the time of the passing of this particular Bill into an Act, referred to group areas. Then it refers to the promotion of community development in line 45 of this particular clause. I think it is reasonable to ask the hon. the Minister why, in terms of the amendment here and in terms of the long title, there is no definition of “community development”?

I have explained that already.

In other words, Sir, there is no need for a definition of “community development” in this clause as there was of “group areas” in the Group Areas Act?

Not under this clause.

Very well, Sir. I can only put it to the hon. Minister, then, that he alone knows what community development means.

Order! That has already been decided upon.

Yes—I am not questioning that any more.

The hon. member need not repeat it then.

The departure from what is contained in the original long title is significant, because it refers to the granting of assistance to persons to acquire or hire immovable property, which, in terms of the Act which this entire Bill seeks to amend, is a new departure. I want to ask therefore whether I am entitled to discuss whether this in fact reflects the contents of the Bill.

Order! Those matters have already been dealt with and decided upon in the other clauses of the Bill.

Sir, I am being urged to try, I do not know whether my best or my worst, to try to obtain clarity on this particular title.

You are not so stupid!

I was about to ask you, Sir whether this particular title, having certain words in it, should be made clear to the Committee or not. If it is clear to all the members of the Committee, then I would not like to raise any matter contained here; but on a question of procedure, I want to ask whether the words contained in the clause should not be clear to the people discussing it, that is to say, the members of this Committee.

That is not the point at issue at all.

Then I say, with great regret, that the point is so “unclear” to me that I cannot decently pursue the matter any further.

I want to sum up by saying that this long title contains a summary of the matters we have discussed under this Bill. During the course of the discussions we have indicated our dislike of many of the clauses, and to indicate in no uncertain terms our objection to those clauses, we will vote against this clause.

Clause 23 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, since the Housing Act was passed in 1957, it has on several occasions been found necessary in the light of conditions obtaining at the time or in the light of changing circumstances, to amend or extend its provisions materially until to-day it is probably one of the most effective instruments of its kind in the world. However, in this process, owing to the numerous amendments, the Act has become rather difficult to follow. I therefore intend at a later stage during this Session to propose its consolidation. With consolidation in view, and to bring the Act up to date as far as possible before consolidation, a few amendments of a minor or administrative nature are necessary and are contained in the Bill now before the House. In this connection I may mention that at the request of one of my colleagues, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I shall propose a further minor amendment during the Committee Stage. This amendment is similar to that contained in paragraph (a) of the definition of “local authority” in Clause 1 of the Bill and relates to the inclusion also of a management board established in terms of Section 40bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, as a “local authority” for the purposes of the Housing Act. The effect of this amendment will be that in the few instances where such management boards are constituted, they will, for the purposes of providing housing in the areas under their jurisdiction, have access to the facilities and funds provided in terms of the Housing Act, 1957.

As I have already said there are no major new principles contained in the six clauses of this Bill. I shall therefore not elaborate any further but deal shortly with the provisions of the various clauses.

Clause 1 extends the definition of the term “local authority” to include also a “management board” established in terms of the Rural Coloured Areas Act. 1963. The effect of it will be that State resources and funds available to other local authorities will also be made available for the improvement of housing conditions in such dwelling areas for Coloureds, subject, however, to the condition that the Department of Coloured Affairs is satisfied that the community concerned and its management board are in a financially viable position. At present assistance cannot, in terms of the Housing Act, 1957, be extended to such communities. A number of townships in these rural areas are being planned, and improved housing will be necessitated there.

The amendment proposed in Clause 2 is of a purely technical nature. When the Housing Act was passed in 1957 provision was made for all State housing moneys outstanding on the date of promulgation of the Act to be transferred to or to accrue to the newly established National Housing Fund. Sinking funds established by local authorities with the Public Debt Commissioners for the redemption of loans granted to local authorities for assisted housing schemes, i.e. sub-economic schemes fell into the category accruing to the fund. This provision was at that time and up to the present interpreted in such a manner that the then existing sinking funds as well as such funds established subsequent to the coming into operation of the Act remained with the Public Debt Commissioners until the capital of such sinking funds had increased to the amount of the capital debt in respect of the scheme concerned. In this way the National Housing Fund was deprived of capital which should rightly have been transferred to it on the date of the establishment of the Fund and which could have been utilized for the purposes of the Fund. This procedure has now been reviewed and it has been decided by the Cabinet that the installments of any sinking funds established after 1 April 1965 should be paid over to the fund and be available for the purposes of the fund, that is, reissue.

The clause further provides, firstly, that any excess interest which is derived from the reinvestment of such moneys can be utilized to augment redemption installments in respect of the loan in question in such a manner that the tenants of the dwellings will not be adversely affected, and secondly, that the balance, if any, of any excess interest that may be earned can be set off against interest losses in respect of assisted housing schemes which Parliament is required to appropriate annually on the Revenue Vote.

This provision will therefore obviously ensure that a more accurate position in regard to the finances of the fund is presented annually to Parliament. Clause 4 of the Bill is complementary to Clause 2 and merely provides for the above arrangement to come into operation on 1 April 1965. This means that sinking funds established prior to that date will remain with and be administered by the Public Debt Commissioners until such funds mature when the capital will be transferred to the National Housing Fund.

Clause 3 is of a purely administrative nature and I shall deal with any questions arising there from during the Committee Stage.

The amendments proposed in Clause 5 are merely an extension of the provisions contained in the original section and aim at making those provisions effective. In this connection I may mention that when an occasion arose which necessitated the application of the provisions contained in the principal Act the Department was confronted by a legal opinion to the effect that contrary to the view always held by the Department, a town-planning scheme was not compiled or made operative in terms of a by-law or regulation of a local authority but was a separate instrument which could be invoked or amended by a local authority at will and that the Department was not in terms of the existing provisions in the principal Act exempt there from. Furthermore there is no requirement making it incumbent on a local authority to make known the provisions of such a scheme or to have it promulgated as an approved town-planning scheme. As a matter of fact most local authorities appear to be working on the basis of “town-planning schemes in the course of preparation”, which obviously makes it impossible for the Department to know in advance what their requirements are. It is therefore necessary that the provision in the Act should be amended to make it as effective as the Department had always considered it to be by including a town-planning scheme among the instruments from which the Department is exempt. The fact that the Department has only once in the eight years that this section has been on the Statute Book found it necessary to invoke it is ample evidence of the reasonableness of the Department’s approach to local requirements. I have since introducing the measure had discussions on this clause and have undertaken to amend it to provide for the Commission to be exempted from the provisions of a town-planning scheme by the Minister only after he has consulted with the Administrator. The clause as amended meets with the approval of the United Municipal Executive.

The other additions to the clause are merely an extending of the existing provisions which are necessary if the Department has to deal adequately with the housing situation which can develop or has developed in certain centres of the country, especially where the local authorities themselves allow or have allowed such conditions to develop on account of laxity in fulfilling the duties resting on them, as the governing body of the area concerned, and placed on them by various Acts of Parliament such as the Housing Act, the Slums Act and the Public Health Act. Where local authorities in spite of the facilities which have now been available since 1920 have allowed conditions to develop which make it incumbent on the Government to step in, in the interest of the local community, it is only right that the Government through a fully equipped State Department should not be frustrated or put to unnecessary expense by local requirements when it in fact has to undertake the work which the local authority itself should have done.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I shall also move a minor amendment to Section 63 of the Act which has been asked for by the United Municipal Executive because it is of practical value to them. The matter is purely technical and I shall furnish more details during the Committee State.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is a small measure but the provisions contained therein are necessary to augment the powers of the State in terms of the Housing Act to deal with the housing situation generally.

This side of the House will support this Bill because we believe that one of the main objectives of this Bill is to make it easier to deal with the housing crisis that we have in South Africa at the moment. We realize that in view of the seriousness of that situation, emergency powers such as those contained in Clause 5 are necessary to enable the Department to get on with the job. As the hon. the Minister has said, the Bill in itself is a short Bill, and in the case of most of the clauses, we have no objection whatsoever to their provisions. The Bill, amongst other things, as the Minister has said, re-defines the term “local authority”, and that, of course, gives the Commission certain extra ability to provide housing for Coloureds, with which we are in agreement. It also, of course, removes the necessity for the hon. the Minister to consult with those local authorities in whose area these schemes may fall, and it probably removes too the necessity for the Housing Commission to consult with the Administrator in cases of this kind. The financial provisions of the Bill are quite acceptable to us. We do not object to any of those provisions. Clause 5, however, exempts the Housing Commission from certain provisions which are very similar in fact, to provisions that we discussed in the Bill that we have just completed in the Committee Stage. Clause 5 (2), for example, says that the Commission shall be exempt from any provisions in an Ordinance in terms of which approval of a local authority is to be obtained for the subdivision of any land. We come back to the same question which we have already argued quite fully, where we are not satisfied and happy that under certain circumstances the rights of existing owners in existing townships, or in areas which are not townships, are properly protected. Let me give you what we have in mind. We have suggested to the hon. the Minister that in regard to the other Bill he takes into consideration property owners, for example, in the older established areas which are not part of an established township, as that term is understood in terms of the Town-Planning Ordinances, as well as those people who fall in established and/or proclaimed townships. We sincerely believe that they should not be subjected to the possibility of having their area, which is a good area, invaded and that they should not in fact suffer because the Government has now embarked upon a crash housing scheme to solve the terrific backlog which has built up. These people should not be called upon to pay the price for the Government’s failure to cope timeously and adequately with the housing requirements of South Africa.

As far as the Biff itself is concerned we regard these provisions as provisions to give the Minister extra power, in spite of the fact that he says these are just small things to enable him later on to consolidate all the housing legislation. We believe this measure together with other legislation which has and is coming before this House, constitutes an invasion of the rights of people in so far as the ownership of their land is concerned. We believe this is a very big step forward. It is an entirely new principle in regard to the dealing in land and even if it is to provide emergency housing we believe the existing rights of landowners should be safeguarded. We treat this particular aspect of this Bill as an emergency measure. We do not believe that under any circumstances should it become a permanent part of the legislation of South Africa. This is a trend in dealing with land, housing and allied subjects, which we have seen creeping into our legislation for some time. Frankly we do not like it. We believe it invades rights and we have made our views perfectly clear on that. So I will not take that any further. But during the Committee Stage of this Bill we will move an amendment which we believe will treat this particular portion of this legislation, as it should in fact be treated, as an emergency measure which has no permanent part in our legislation. We will move to limit the life of this particular portion of the Bill.

We are not inexperienced in the question of providing housing quickly. This side of the House, when in government, was also faced with exactly the same problems as this hon. Minister is; perhaps not to the same extent but nevertheless we were faced with the problem of providing housing. I think in our case the cause for the necessity for that housing was probably very different from the cause to-day. In 1945, when we introduced the Housing Emergency Powers Bill we had to do so to deal with a housing shortage which had come about as a result of a certain set of conditions. These conditions resulted from a war and all the changes that flow from a war. For example, it was the beginning of the industrial era here in South Africa, the stepping up of the tempo of industrialization to cope with our war requirements, and the huge population movements that go with such industrialization and with war conditions. We dealt with it in a totally different way from the way in which this hon. Minister is dealing with it. We were quite frank about it, Sir. We treated it purely as an emergency measure. We limited its life and we let Parliament be the judge. Let me quote you, Sir, something from the speech of the then Minister of Health when introducing his Bill. In Column 8436 of Vol. 54 of Hansard he said this—

Then he goes on to deal with the provisions of the Bill and to say why he wants these powers and to give Parliament an account of the situation which existed at that time. Compare that with the manner in which the hon. the Minister and the Government have chosen to deal with the present crisis. They are acting totally differently. The hon. Minister seeks emergency powers, but he does not come to this House and explain that there is in fact an emergency and that his task is to build houses to try to catch up with the fantastic backlog which has built up. He does not say he wants these powers to cope with that situation. He does not treat it as a temporary measure and letting these powers fall away when Parliament thinks there is no longer any reason for them to be on the Statute Book. How has the present housing crisis come about and why is there a need for these powers? I believe the present crisis has come about, first of all, because of the incompetence of this Government. [Laughter.] I hear a chuckle from the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). If he exercised his brain a little I think he would agree with me. First of all we have had hurled at us across the floor of this House on not one, but on many occasions, the statement that the Government has planned the prosperity we are enjoying at the moment. Here we have in this Bill concrete evidence that even if they planned the prosperity they have not been able to cope with it because we have a backlog of houses which one can reduce to figures. These figures represent a complete and utter failure on the part of this Government to cope with this so-called planned prosperity. You see, Sir, I sometimes feel a little sorry for this hon. Minister because the hon. the Minister of Finance, for example, tells us on the same subject of planned prosperity that he puts the brake on occasionally and that he puts the accelerator on occasionally while this hon. Minister has to keep his foot on the accelerator all the time. Even now he is finding that the engine is not performing so well. He has a lot of trouble and he will have to put in a great effort to catch up with the backlog which has built up.

Another reason why we have this type of legislation before us is the over-hasty implementation of apartheid. I want to remind you, Sir, that not this Bill alone but other allied matters which are before this House at the moment also contribute to the meanings and the interpretation of this measure. Not so long ago the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) told this hon. Minister that he was a young Minister in a hurry. I think that is very true.

A third reason is this that the Government adopted a policy of immigration—our policy —but that it adopted it too late and without planning for the effects the adoption of that policy would have. If they had in fact planned properly they would have had the workers here to help build these houses; they would not have had such a huge backlog accumulate a backlog which has acted to the detriment of the new people who are arriving. The Government cannot cope with them. In response to the news that 3,100 low-cost housing units were to be built in the next 18 months for Whites in Durban, Mr. Mervyn Smitherine, secretary of the Natal branch of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, said—

This is a local man expressing an opinion on the effect locally—

This is the effect it is having on people coming to our country. There are no houses for them when they come here. The accommodation position is so difficult that they cannot in fact go necessarily to the place they want to go to, because there is no accommodation for them.

I would like to know from this hon. Minister what the actual shortage of housing is; what is the shortage that warrants measures such as the one before us? Some days ago in this House he gave us the figure of 16,950 new homes that were required for Whites. I have made inquiries amongst people who should know something about this position and from what they have told me I am prepared to say to this Minister that a figure of 40,000 is probably a far more realistic figure of his needs for housing for White people. The figure he gave us included mostly the big centres. It does not include housing in the smaller centres. There is no question about it that the figure he gave us is low. In the case of Durban alone the Minister told us that 3,000 houses were needed. The Durban City Council have now embarked upon a crash programme to build 3,100. If the shortage were only 3,000 they would not have embarked. upon a crash programme to build 3,100. So I would believe that his figures are low. The figures in the case of Whites are therefore, I believe, somewhere in the region of 40,000. What about housing for the Indian, Coloured and Bantu communities? These are the groups for which I have no figures but I tried to get some together. A rather good article appeared in the Natal Mercury of 5 March 1965 which I think gives us some sort of picture of what the needs really are. In dealing particularly with the increase in the Bantu labour force to 136,000 in Durban this year it has created an awkward situation, a situation which is going to need a lot of attention. There are comments from the members of the Native Affairs Department. I do not want to weary the House by reading this article but I would like to give the House the figures I have extracted. In Durban alone, from the Bantu housing point of view, 25,500 projects have been approved. There is a shortfall at the moment, even providing for those, of 10,000. The target in Umlazi, the bigger Native township, is 21,000. Up to now 8,993 permanent and temporary residences have been provided. That leaves a shortage of 12,007 still to be built. A new crash programme has been put on the stocks to extend the Umlazi scheme by 12,936 units and Qua Mashu by 3,500 plus a further 9,000 at Dalmeni and Richmond, giving a total of 25,435. If you add to that the 12,007 still to be built you need for Bantu accommodation alone 37,442 houses.

Order! That is a matter the hon. member can discuss under the hon. Minister’s Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a Housing Bill and the need is urgent. The Bill itself lends itself to this kind of discussion because it provides for the acquisition of land on which to build the very houses I am talking about.

The hon. member is going very far.

Sir, I want to illustrate the point, if I may. I will not go very much further. I have about three more figures to mention, if I may, Sir, with your permission. If we add the requirements of the Indians and the Coloureds—I just have to estimate them because I do not know what they are; I have estimated it at 20,000 which I think is an underestimate—it means that for the Bantu, Indians and Coloureds in Durban alone we require 57,442 houses. If you add the 3,000 which the hon. the Minister gave us as the figure required for Whites, it means that Durban alone needs 60,442 houses.

You are just talking politics.

I am not paying any attention to that. These figures are taken from an article the information for which was given by the Department’s officials. In the case of Coloureds and Indians I have based my own estimate, which is an underestimate, on the requirements for Whites given by the hon. the Minister himself.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Sir. I have ended with that. I have shown the figure required in Durban alone. What about the other centres? This is a position where, if you add the requirements of the other bigger centres …

Order! The hon. member must leave that aspect.

I shall do that. Sir. Just to sum the position up, if I may: It is so obvious we need many thousands of houses in South Africa and they have to be provided.

How is the hon. Minister going to catch up with the position? How is he going to provide the Houses that have to be provided; the houses for which he is taking measures in this Bill to help him to provide, measures which we are prepared to give him. We are concerned about how these measures are going to be applied to provide these houses.

You can raise that under my Vote.

No, Sir. That is not the place. The Minister is asking in this Bill for powers to do this job. The Minister says: “You can raise that under my Vote.” We want to raise it under this Bill where he is taking the power to subdivide land as he wishes to provide houses. This is what we want to know: How is he going to use this power? You see, Sir, if he is going to catch up with this serious position he will really have to do something. Some of the things I suggest he should do are, first of all, to make sure that adequate money is available. I say that particularly …

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see if we cannot do anything to assist in providing these houses. This is a Housing Bill.

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

Very well, Sir. I want to discuss the question of Clause 5 (2) which says—

The number of houses that can be built is unrestricted; the commission is exempt from endowment; it is exempt from the permission of the local authority or owner of an approved township to commence building operations. In other words, the whole of this Clause provides for the commission to get on with the job of providing houses. It is along those lines Sir, that I want to go for a moment. The hon. the Minister, if he is going to use the provisions of Clause 5, in other words, if he is going to use the land he is going to sub-divide —he already has the right to expropriate it— has to intensify his activity in certain directions. First of all, I think he should give every assistance to private enterprise. I think he should make sure that building materials are available for them. Because I would remind the hon. the Minister that private enterprise is going to provide some 50 per cent or more of the houses the Minister is going to provide under the powers he has in this Bill. Then I think that while he is exempt from consulting or obtaining the permission of the local authority he must still try to co-operate with them because he is going to need the help of everybody, not just his own Housing Commission; he is going to need the help of the local authority from whose by-laws he is taking exemption now to deal with his problems. He must ask them to assist too in solving this problem.

The other thing is this, that the Minister has got to the stage where he must concentrate on using these powers and putting houses on the land he takes and sub-divides. I believe he has to concentrate on that and not necessarily so much on the angle of clearing up slums and re-building this urban renewal scheme about which he has ideas. I think there are many other things he can do to speed up the provision of these houses and to deal properly and adequately with this problem; he should use the powers he is taking under this Bill properly.

In conclusion I should like to read to this hon. Minister a little advice. It is contained in Hansard. It is not mine but I would like to add my own recommendation to it. It is contained in column 8435 of vol. 54 of 1945. It says this—

The man I am quoting was Dr. Bremer speaking on the Housing Act of 1945; on the debate on the second reading.

I am glad that we are all agreed that certain factors have contributed to the fact that to-day we must effect drastic measures in many respects in order to keep pace with the country’s housing requirements. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) says he ascribes the crisis which has arisen in regard to housing to the inefficiency of the Minister. No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the position. Certain circumstances have contributed towards the position that we have a shortage of housing to-day. I may just mention a few of those in passing. There is the provision of separate residential areas for the various races. The Opposition agrees with us that there should be separate residential areas for the various racial groups. This Government had to put it into practice, with the result that we had to build many houses. The Government also energetically tackled the clearance of slums which had been developing over the years along the outskirts of our cities, and as a result many houses had to be built. The influence of industrialization, the fact that our country is bursting at the seams in the economic sphere, as well as the large-scale immigration we have had in recent years, have resulted in a housing need. When the hon. member for Umlazi says that if at that time we had allowed immigrants to enter we would now have had the people to build the necessary houses, I want to tell him that if at that time we had allowed more immigrants to enter there would not have been houses for them. One of the reasons why immigration was stopped at the time was because the housing position was chaotic under the United Party régime. There simply were not enough houses to accommodate our own people. How could we still bring in immigrants?

It is obvious that we cannot build enough houses to keep pace with the demand by making use of the old methods. We cannot continue to build houses according to the old conventional methods. Nor can we plan large housing schemes with obsolete legal machinery. It would be foolish of this Government to allow our housing programme to become enmeshed in a web of cumbersome, time-consuming administrative machinery which was not designed to keep pace with modern circumstances. For that reason the Minister from time to time in recent years has drastically amended and modernized our legislation dealing with community planning and the provision of houses. This legislation also goes in that direction. We are glad that the hon. the Minister at this stage already is thinking of the comprehensive legislation which was introduced in regard to housing particularly in recent years with a view to consolidating it. and we realize that these amendments are just an addition and a tightening up of the legislation before that consolidation takes place. There was really n urgent need to put our planning machinery and the administration of housing programmes on the most modern basis. I think we have now progressed so far in regard to our legislation that we have reached that stage. The Department of Housing is a dynamic department which is faced with new situations from time to time.

Therefore we have also found in recent years that from time to time it became necessary to amend the law in order to improve the administration of housing. This amending Bill is a step in the same direction. It is calculated to make the departmental machinery work efficiently, to speed up the provision of housing and to prevent the delays in the provision of housing which may be caused by complicated city and town planning. The powers the Minister takes here are absolutely essential.

I just want to refer specifically to one or two of the provisions. There is the one which empowers boards of management in Coloured rural areas and urban Bantu councils to take up housing loans. There is another provision which provides that the redemption in respect of sub-economic houses will no longer be paid to the Public Debt Commissioners, but that as from 1 April it will be paid into the Housing Fund. This is a very good arrangement, Sir, because instead of allowing the money to he with the Public Debt Commissioners for as long as 40 years, it can now immediately be used for housing again. The idea is to use the profit on the interest to regulate the payments so that they will not increase. The balance will go towards making good the loss of interest which the fund has to pay to the Treasury every year in respect of money borrowed by the fund from the Treasury. This arrangement will result in strengthening the Housing Fund further so that it will be able to do even greater things than it does at the moment. Last year the hon. the Minister told us that the National Housing Fund is a revolving fund which is becoming increasingly stronger until we will gradually reach the position where the fund will be self-sufficient and we will probably in future have to ask this House for less money because the fund will be able to finance housing on its own. That is the reply to what the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has just said, viz. that the Minister should ensure that the money is available. I am grateful that the Housing Fund is so strong to-day that it can practically meet our large-scale housing needs. This amendment will strengthen the fund even further.

Coming to the provisions of Clause 5, which amend Section 44, we find that the wording in Section 44(g) is the same as in Clause 12 sex of the Community Development Amendment Bill, the Committee Stage of which has just been passed.

Is it the same?

Yes, it is precisely the same. Now I am glad that hon. members opposite did not revert to the question of powers being taken away from local authorities. I mention this because I feel that if the local authorities co-operate there will be no need for interfering with their powers. It is also clear from what the hon. the Minister has just said that in the past eight years it was necessary to make use of these powers only once. If, however, local authorities withhold their co-operation or want to put obstacles in the way of the Department, I am in favour of interference with their powers if that is in the public interest.

What I do welcome are the amendments the hon. the Minister is now proposing by way of the amendments contained in Clause 5, i.e. amendments to Sections 1 and 2. That shows the Minister’s desire to maintain close cooperation with the provinces and the local authorities. In spite of everything that has been said from the opposite side of the House from time to time, this is obvious proof that it is the Minister’s intention closely to cooperate in providing for this great need in our country, and I also welcome the fact that we know that the Minister is prepared, as is also the case now again, to bring together the Administrators and the Executive Committees of the provinces for consultations from time to time, as well as the positive and joint action which will flow from those consultations. I just want to refer here to one very good arrangement which was born of such consultations, namely the fact that there is to-day mutual representations of officials of the Department of Housing on the boards of the provinces which deal with the planning of townships, and that on the other hand again the provincial authorities are represented in the regional committees of the National Housing Commission.

It is a principle of our housing legislation that when it comes to the provision of housing for the sub-economic and middle income groups the State has a responsibility but that the local authorities also have a responsibility, and in order to facilitate the work of the local authorities I should like to draw their attention to the very valuable documents which have been made available recently by the hon. the Minister and his Department to the local authorities and to everybody who is interested in the provision of housing. It will facilitate their task. I just want to mention the housing code drawn up by the Secretary for Housing …

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

Sir, I just want to mention it to you …

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Bill now. I just want to say that these two documents which are now available …

Order! Those documents are not relevant now.

Sir, will you just allow me to explain that with the Bill as now amended the possibility has been created for non-White local management boards and Bantu urban councils to take up loans. These bodies are still inexperienced in so far as the work of local authorities is concerned, and I just want to say that in these two documents they are being given guidance which will to a large extent facilitate their work in future.

My remarks will be brief. I want to confine myself almost exclusively to Clause 5 of the Bill. The powers which the Minister seeks in connection with Bantu Settlement Boards and Coloured Settlement Boards, I think are, in the main, acceptable, and it is understandable that the Minister requires these powers. I think also, that the requirements in regard to finance are possibly necessary in the case of some local authorities. But, I would like the hon. Minister to explain to me, if he will, whether or not it has been the custom of local authorities to remit their funds promptly as and when necessary, and what precisely is the reason for these dates. I have discussed this with various heads of municipal departments and they inquire as to the necessity of this particular clause in the legislation.

I want to refer in some detail to Clause 5, because the other day the hon. Minister went to great pains to take me to task in the House on a matter which did not concern planning at all.

Would you please tell me what you were referring to?

I was referring to Clause 2 in regard to the words “and interest, including any interest derived from the utilization of repayments”. What precisely is the intention of that particular clause? There seems to be some doubt amongst the local authorities as to the precise meaning of this clause.

It has nothing to do with local authorities.

I take it then that it is actually a clause to give the Minister powers to act in relation to the Treasury.

Yes, it is an arrangement between me and the Treasury.

Thank you. Now the other day, as I have said, the hon. the Minister went to great pains to refer to certain remarks I had made in connection with types of buildings; and why councils, and my council in particular, at that time, had not acted. I would like the hon. Minister just to admit here, if he will, that that arose after a visit which he paid to the City of Kimberley when I had the great pleasure of taking him around the housing schemes and showing him what we were trying to do. In this particular Bill we refer to various conditions and types of houses that may or may not be built. I do not quite know what the objective of the Minister was the other evening, but the fact remains that I was actually talking in the speech, he referred to, to the council of which I was the mayor, and which I was trying to persuade to take some action …

Order!

I am coming to the point Mr. Speaker …

The hon. member is taking a wide circle to get to the point.

Well, Sir, a circle is a long way round, and I do not wish to trifle with the Chair, but the hon. the Minister made a personal attack on me and I must reply to him.

Yes, but this is not the occasion.

Thank you, Sir, I shall seek many occasions to come back to that.

May I now proceed to say this: I would like to ask the hon. Minister, in dealing with Clause 5, what the meaning is of “the type of dwelling to be constructed, the value thereof, or the materials to be used in the construction thereof” …

Industrialized methods.

Well, I would like to say this: After many years of experience in housing and the building of houses of all sorts and kinds, as the hon. Minister knows, it has been my experience that one must be very careful. At the time when I asked the hon. Minister what he had in mind in regard to these industrial methods and the types and kinds of houses which he proposed, he had a picture in his pocket of substitute materials which I understood were for the first time being used in Pretoria. Now naturally, as an individual, deeply interested in this type of thing, of providing cheap and low-priced housing, I was naturally anxious to know what was going to be done. I cannot understand why the hon. Minister should want to dictate the type of dwelling or the value thereof or the materials. When we deal with this particular aspect I would like to ask him, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it can happen, and whether it is his intention to reduce the value of townships (a) by increasing the number of houses possible on one plot, and (b) by reducing the standard of those houses. I am not thinking now of the high-class type of house which can easily be built. I am thinking of the low-priced stuff, and particularly housing for the Coloured community who are just as desperately in need of housing as any other group. These two portions have been introduced into this clause “the number of dwellings which may be constructed on any one piece of land” and then the other one in regard to subdivision.

Now I would like to know how big is a “piece of land”? Is this an approved plot in a township, or is it a departure from the town-planning scheme in terms of sub-section (1) of this particular section—is it going to be that the township itself will be cut into smaller plots, or are the plots themselves to be cut, and to what extent will the local authority have any say, or any opportunity to submit and or render advice? Because I get the uneasy feeling that when we persistently try to reduce standards, either by the number of houses on a plot, or the standard of the house by the thickness of walls and the lowness of ceilings, one does bring about a set of conditions which can in due course, in the future, present us with a number of difficulties. I hope the hon. Minister will give me some details on that particular point, because it is one which exercises the mind of local authorities, very, very considerably. You see, Mr. Speaker, the standard of housing, particularly in the sub-economic groups is so low at the present moment, that the local authorities often wonder whether the buildings will last the length of the loan. So, you will understand my anxiety to know exactly what is intended here, in dealing with the particular properties that we want to build.

The other observation I wish to make is in connection with any further subdivision of land. The hon. Minister can exempt himself from submitting any plans or anything of that sort whatsoever. Now precisely what is the meaning of this new provision? In the case of sub-economic properties, it does not really matter, but there are a number of economic properties which are affected and on which plans should be filed with the local authorities, and it should be obligatory on the Minister so to do. These are a few of the difficulties I see. I think the legislation in the main is necessary. I am familiar with the position in this country, I am familiar with the position amongst the Coloured community and amongst the Bantu, and also among the Whites, and I am one of those who have done something constructive in an endeavour to do something about it. I am familiar with the difficulties that arise, and when we come to the Minister’s Vote I will quote him chapter and verse on the snags and difficulties with which local authorities are faced, and which he may be able to eliminate administratively. But what I am concerned about, and most people are concerned about, is this anxiety on the part of the Minister, probably very laudable, to gather unto himself all the power, whereas in my humble opinion he would get far better results by delegating his powers down. That is the direction I would like to see: I would like to see delegation down the line. We talk about plans and things of that kind—there are services in regard to townships—and all get into the bottle-neck of the National Housing Commission. Whereas there are highly trained officials employed by local authorities to draw up plans for various services and structures, I believe that the time has come, in view of the necessity to do something with this very thorny problem, that delegation of authority should be the new idea, to industrialize it, as the hon. Minister said. If I may translate “industrialization”, I would say “industrialization is to get more people at the job”. If the hon. Minister would adopt that line of action, I am sure he would get far better results. There is no question about it, Sir, that all the legislation in the world (and we are getting plenty these days) can never take the place of the persons on the job, who have to lay the bricks and put on the plaster, lay the water-pipes, install the power and so forth. You cannot have all this business centralized in one office in Pretoria, although some things have been delegated to branches throughout the country.

As I say the intentions of the Minister merit some praise, but I believe his method of attacking the problems are incorrect. Local authorities are experienced people; local government is a system which obtains in this country and I do appeal to him to realize that they, the local authorities, are willing to help (although he sometimes does not think so). They have done a tremendous amount of work. They have already tackled the problems themselves, and they have gone a long way towards resolving them. When he quotes the number of houses which we need, as he does from time to time, it is interesting to see how the need is becoming less and less and how we are beginning to make inroads into this enormous backlog, which is due not so much to immigrants, but to the drift to the towns. So I ask the hon. Minister to give us some information on the points I have raised.

We appreciate the fact that the Opposition are supporting this Bill, but when one looks at the way in which they are doing so, one wishes that they would rather oppose it, because there are so many qualifications attached to their support that one feels more inclined to attack them. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the delegation of powers to local authorities, powers which, supposedly, will produce much better results than the method the Minister wants to employ. I agree with the hon. member that such a delegation of powers will work reasonably well in 90 out of 100 cases, but unfortunately it will not work in the remaining 10 cases, because there are local authorities who for reasons of their own refuse to cooperate with the Minister and his Department. This measure proposes to grant the Minister the power to take action himself in such cases, I repeat what I have said, and that is that while the method suggested by the hon. member will work reasonably well and produce very good results in 90 out of 100 cases, the Minister must still have the necessary powers to act in the remaining 10 cases. I can mention quite a number of municipalities where it is necessary for the Minister to take the power into his own hands and to provide the necessary housing facilities.

We all agree that there is an acute shortage of housing, for the simple reason that this country is experiencing an economic boom that is unparalleled in its history and as a result of which people who formerly lived in slums now have to get decent houses. It is not so much because of the immigrants that more houses are required, but because of the boom in the economy of our country, a boom which is the direct result of the steps taken by this Government over the past 17 years. It is a fact, however, that certain local authorities have not done what was required to meet the urgent need for housing.

I take it you are referring to Jansenville?

No, to the Johannesburg City Council!

I am speaking from personal experience. The Town Council of Paarl has also failed to make the necessary provision. I just mention this as an example to illustrate what I mean. Over the past 30 years no provision was made for housing for Whites in Paarl. Land for this purpose was bought 9 years ago, but no building operations were commenced, on the excuse that group areas had not yet been proclaimed. That was why building operations could not be commenced. But in the meantime, in August 1963, group areas were proclaimed; up to the present day, however, not a single house has been completed, in spite of the fact that building work has been in progress for the past 10 months. Apparently this state of affairs is not due to the Town Council not realizing that there is an urgent need for housing, but to their not sufficiently appreciating the existing need, because why is it necessary to take 10 months over building a few houses?

Yes, if there is a Nationalist-controlled town council!

I mention these things to point out how necessary it is for the Minister to get the powers he is seeking in Clause 5 of the Bill. The Minister should have the power to take action himself in such cases and to meet the housing need with the assistance of the Housing Commission.

Because we all agree with the principles of this Bill and because we all agree that there is a tremendous need for housing, we may just as well end this debate by telling the Minister to carry on and to implement this Bill so that we may meet the urgent housing needs of our people. Because nothing has been done during the past 30 years to provide, housing for Whites in Paarl the need is so great that I am afraid the Minister will have to take action there as well by using his powers to provide the necessary accommodation. I sincerely hope that he will do so.

The hon. member for Paarl, who has just sat down, said that over the last 30 years very little was done in respect of housing for Whites …

I referred to Paarl.

Oh, did the hon. member refer to Paarl only? Well, in that case he ought to know best because he comes from there. Mr. Speaker, last year the hon. the Minister concluded his introduction of a Bill amending the Housing Act by saying (Hansard Vol 10, col. 5226)—

When commencing his address on that occasion he said there were certain important principles which had to be incorporated in the Act. To-day, however, he reversed that procedure in that he said that the amendments proposed in this Bill were simple, minor and administrative matters, matters which he thought should be incorporated in the Act in order to enable him to prepare the ground for a consolidation of the principal Act.

Do you agree with the amendments?

I shall deal with them in due course, if the Minister will permit me to. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) then entered the debate in support of the Minister with an extremely well-prepared and carefully thought out address in which he pointed out what an important lot of amendments these were. These, he said, were absolutely necessary to speed up the provision of housing in this country because the position was serious. He, in fact, came to the conclusion that we were experiencing a crisis as regards housing. In the circumstances I hope that the Minister and his followers may come to some agreement as to what exactly the objective of these amendments is.

As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the leading speaker from this side has already indicated that we support these amendments principally because we agree with the hon. member for Parow. We know, for instance, that the Minister is faced with certain difficulties and that he must get on with the provision of housing. Well, when a man comes to this House and says that he must get on with the provision of houses for the community, then that does our hearts a great deal of good because to do that has been a fundamental part of the policy of this side of the House over very many years, a policy which has been carried out with tremendous success in this country, and a policy on which I am happy to see the Minister is trying to build a very sound structure.

But let me return to the Bill, and let me deal with Clause 5 first. Certain amendments are going to be moved to this clause because the powers of the commission are being extended considerably. By proposing that the commission shall be exempt from any town-planning scheme and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) and a new sub-section (2), we believe that the Minister is virtually extending his powers. However, there are times when we on this side of the House should give the Government powers to do certain things. Such powers, however, must then be limited to the foreseeable future and, indeed, I think the Minister, if he carries out what he undertakes to do, ought to be able to do that in a very short time especially in view of these extensive powers now being asked. Therefore, as has already been indicated, we shall move an amendment in the committee stage limiting the period during which these powers shall be operative. A further amendment will also be moved to ensure that local authorities and the Administrator concerned shall be aware of the various changes brought about by the commission by virtue of it being exempt from certain restrictions in title deeds, from certain conditions of establishment of township schemes and from other ordinances and bylaws of local authorities and the provinces.

The Minister talked about arrangements between himself and the Treasury which will enable him to spread funds over a wider surface and thus do much more in this field. The hope has even been expressed that the Housing Fund might have sufficient funds and that it will thus not be necessary to come to Parliament for further appropriations. But then the Minister should tell us what he has failed to tell us up to now, i.e. whether he can spend the funds and whether he can spend it soon? I ask this because if the Minister is seeking a change in the administrative side of his funding, he must at least be able to give us the assurance that he will be able to spend the money. I admit that the spending of these funds depends also on the available labour forces, material, etc. A while ago the Minister issued a certain statement to the Press but when a question was put to him in this House about what he intends doing, a question which enabled him to tell this House and learn its reaction thereto, his reply was a very terse one to the effect that we should refer to his Press statement. That I did not think to be a courteous reply from the Minister.

Order! That really has nothing to do with this Bill.

I have made my point. Sir …

The hon. member should then come back to the Bill.

I am dealing, Sir, with the fact that the Minister wants more funds for housing. That is what he said in his opening remarks in regard to Clause 2 and Clause 4. These clauses deal with the way in which excess interest can be appropriated for extensions to present and other schemes. Surely the hon. the Minister does not want me to forget that issue?

That has nothing to do with building control.

I should like the Minister to tell us what steps he is taking to spend the money, how he is going to avoid certain buildings being proceeded with, buildings for which plans have been submitted, and how he has seen fit to refuse R8,000,000 worth of building projects being proceeded with at the present time. I ask this because he himself in previous statements, statements which I can quote from Hansard if necessary, said, that it was essential that not only the Government and local authorities but also the private sector should play an important part in respect of the provision of housing. The private sector also must, therefore, provide funds. Now, if there is a limitation in respect of this sector, then the Minister must tell us why he is limiting it. He must also tell us how he intends overcoming the problem, particularly in view of the fact that he is asking for additional powers for the purpose of, firstly, making funds more readily available and, secondly, overcoming any obstacles that might be in his way. He owes it to this House to inform us about these points. This is the platform he should make use of to do that.

The hon. member for Parow talked about a dynamic department. He said this Bill would enable the building programme to be speeded up. He also said that the powers the Minister was seeking, were necessary. Well, we hope that that will be the position because we say that the present backlog is due to the inability of the Government to plan properly and correctly, and to plan as any government should plan when it is faced with tremendous economic development. The Government’s immigration plans came on the scene very late and its plans for housing even later. Something which the Minister—being one of the chief propagandists who at one time spoke against immigration on the grounds that it would take away homes from the people, let alone other things —should know …

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

Therefore I say that the reason why the Minister comes with this type of measure again is because he has failed to meet the obligation he has to the nation to provide adequate housing of a satisfactory type. I want to say further that these powers he is taking to exempt the commission from certain ordinances and township schemes and conditions of establishment, he could well have given to the local authorities, and not overburdened his Department, as he now wants to do, with work which was traditionally done by the local authority. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to this. I only quote the City of Johannesburg because it is a big local authority which has played a very important part in housing. In their own Budget delivered in June last year, when they set aside capital to the extent of R33,000,000 and ordinary expenditure to the extent of R67,000,000, they said that this coming year for the first time something is to be set aside specifically as the nucleus for the provision for urban renewal. I would like the Minister to know that there are parts of a big city like that, such as Jeppes …

Order! Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

But the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) was told by the Minister that he was going to do this in District Six.

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

All I want to tell the Minister is that the money and the power he is seeking could well have been delegated. He is asking approval for these additional powers, but I say those powers could well have been delegated because there are blighted areas which local authorities have not been able to improve because they did not have the power to do so.

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

I have read the Bill very thoroughly. I only know that when the supporters of the hon. the Minister in this House deal exactly with the matters I am dealing with …

Order!

I apologize if you, Sir, thought I was casting any reflection. I really intended attacking the Minister. The position is that in the problem of housing we always have to realize one important factor, and that is that one has to be cautious with regard to established practice. One of the problems that faces us when we seek sweeping powers such as are contained in Clause 5 is that there should be no interference with established schemes and that when one thinks of providing more houses than are allowed on a site one must take into account the surrounding and contiguous areas. I think the Minister should give us an assurance in this respect. He cannot regard this amendment as an administrative one. Here is an amendment which could well cut into an established complex of township development, and I think we should get an assurance from the Minister that he will take all those factors into account in deciding at any stage, for the purpose of the better working of the Housing Act, that the number of dwellings which are to be greater than that provided for on the site do not allow the area to deteriorate. I think we need an assurance and the country needs an assurance that in granting the Minister these extraordinary powers he will be very careful to avoid infringing the rights of presently established areas; because unfortunately in the Minister’s opening speech we did not get the details I think we were entitled to get.

I want to say further that one does agree that when one is facing a difficulty such as the Minister is facing in the development of new housing schemes, you do find large tracts of land which have been incorporated into a township, where the land actually is large if one considers that it could be developed speedily but will be developed slowly because it needs a particular type of owner and a particularly large sum of money for development. But there are a number of those townships existing to-day away from the well built-up areas in the residential suburbs of many of our towns, and I think we would like to feel that the Minister will ensure that that type of township will be the type of township he will try to acquire and deal with; because that is where one has the opportunity of increasing the number of houses on a site, but at the same time making satisfactory provision for the necessary open spaces and the necessary amenities which will avoid any slum development. I think on that score we also need some assurance.

Then we come to the new sub-clause (e) which talks about the further sub-division of land. That virtually in many senses is complementary to (d), which talks about an additional number of dwellings. I think is is only fair to the House that we should have a full explanation of all these things. Generally, as we have said, we support every effort the Minister wishes to make and every power he seeks to enable him to get on with housing. I hope he will not find it necessary this year to follow the example both of this year and last year by interchanging the question of administrative requirements or necessitous requirements, to come for further amendments to the House, but rather to make use of the powers he already has in profusion to get on with the job. This side of the House wants to see housing. It wants the Minister to follow the example not only of previous Governments but also of long-established and far-seeing municipalities which have made a very fine job of housing. If he takes that example to heart we will make much more progress and will not have to come back to the House continuously for further powers.

The. hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is so fond of referring to the “baa-baa” of Cradock, but I want to tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Cradock undoubtedly knows much more about the problems of the Rand …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

If one looks at the legislation before the House to-day, legislation which the Minister of Housing has placed before us because he is experiencing certain problems, and because it is a good law for solving these problems, one finds that the members of the Opposition are tripping over their own feet, just as I perhaps will, because they can say nothing against this law; and when we begin to trip over our own feet it is because there are such good clauses in the Bill. I want to tell the Minister that we welcome this legislation, Clause 5(1) (d), in particular, and I hope and trust that I interpret this clause correctly as meaning that the type of dwelling to be built or the value thereof or the materials that may be used in building it are all exempted from the various township ordinances. If we want to solve the housing problem in the Republic I am glad to see a clause being introduced here that helps the Minister to get rid of the old conventional methods of building we have had in the Republic. We have always believed that a house must be built of bricks and cements and of the best materials one can find. It was something fine and beautiful, and it was very hard for the local authorities ever to change their bye-laws to make it possible to use other types of building material; one could never persuade them to do so. That is why I am so glad to see this clause which grants the Minister the power to employ new methods of building, and I can reassure the hon. member for Florida that the Minister will be in a position to spend all the money at his disposal and that he will spend it well and quickly. Furthermore we are satisfied—even as regards (e), which he is worried about—that this is a responsible Minister with responsible head officials in his Department, and we are all satisfied that they will not build White locations. We are satisfied that, with these new suburbs or townships they are going to start, they will only give the best to the people, because they are inhabitants of the Republic after all. Regardless of whether they are Whites or non-Whites, we are satisfied that where the Minister is seeking these powers he will nevertheless see to it that all the requirements of modern township planning are met and that his planning is as modern and that all the facilities are provided as are provided in the suburb in which the hon. member for Florida lives: and even where I myself live. I say that the Minister will do these things here too, because we see that all our Bantu townships are being planned in the most modern way. Therefore the hon. member need have no fear that the planning will be inferior. The Minister wants to cut out all the red tape we know of in the town councils. The Minister is asking this Board to help him do this, and we all trip over this, because this is good legislation. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is going to speak next and I want to say this to him. If he wants to have his name honoured in this House he should get up and say only three words and tell the Minister that he welcomes this legislation. Then he will be doing some good.

Mr. Speaker, how can I be expected to take the advice of the hon. member for Brakpan when he says I should get up here and, following this example, say three words, and then he proceeds to use six words? In the light of the experience of my colleagues on this side of the House this afternoon, I was thinking of using two words instead of three—not six! I was very surprised to find that the hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill made an unusually brief speech to-day. As we know, the introductory speech is usually a survey of the Bill and its major implications, but I must say that the Minister has left much to the imagination in regard to the implications of the Bill. That being the case, one must necessarily discuss with him the Bill as it appears before the House, in order to try to find out just what there is in it, so that we will have a better idea of what the impact of this Bill will be on the provision of housing which the Minister says is the object of this Bill. For example, he was heard to say that the Housing Act was one of the most effective instruments of its kind in the world, and he said that this Bill was a case of providing a few minor amendments with an eye to the subsequent consolidation of all the legislation. I want to put this to the House: if this country can rightly boast of having the kind of legislation in regard to housing which makes it one of the most effective instruments in the world, then it is difficult to understand why the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) was able to point to certain facts which indicate that, even to this day, and even after this Bill is passed, there will still be a great deal to be done in regard to the effective provision of housing.

Order! The hon. member’s introductory remarks have been long enough. He must come back to the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I want to deal first of all with the situation that will arise in the light of the most important clause in this Bill, Clause 5. I hope I may be permitted to say something about that. The hon. member for Brakpan pointed out that he could not understand why the hon. member for Florida, or the Opposition, could possibly object to Clause 5. Well, we perhaps see this in a different light. I am not prepared to say that we are necessarily right, but it is not a point of view which is completely beyond consideration—the fact that we have this objection to this clause. There was a time—and •we have heard this again this afternoon—when only the local authorities were to blame for the shortage of housing in South Africa. You, Sir, heard two speeches of that nature this afternoon. It was due to the dilatoriness or the neglect of the local authorities and nothing else, and in fact the hon. member for Paarl went so far as to say that he could give many examples of local authorities which had compelled the Minister to come with this sort of legislation, which deprived the local authorities of their traditional powers. Then, by way of interjection, I asked him to name an example, but he refused. Well, I want to name an example which is almost historical to-day; this was said in this honourable House in Column 8455 of Hansard about a certain local authority.

The Hansard of which year is that?

It is the authorized version of Hansard Col. 8455, in English, not the abridged or my own version. Here is the following statement by an hon. member—

The point I am trying to bring out, and having regard to what you, Sir, said to me a little earlier—I am not going to read five columns in the same strain even if you would be good enough to permit me—but the salient point I am trying to make is that the local authorities have not always been guilty of the kind of neglect, indifference or dilatoriness which now is sought as the justification for the taking of very sweeping powers. There were such difficulties as the financial arrangements between the local authorities and the Central Government. There was the question of the housing formula. This is the same Housing Commission. by whatever name you call it which was then replying, in regard to losses and the refund of losses to the local authority …

Where does the local authority bear the loss?

Order! I do not want hon. members to develop another line of argument and another subject matter which are not incorporated in the Bill. The hon. member must deal with the Bill.

As far as Clause 5 (1) (d) is concerned, and the justification we have heard from two hon. members and to some extent from the Minister, being the so-called neglect of the local authorities, I was trying to prove—as I can, ad infinitum and ad nauseum—that this is not true. Therefore I say that in the very brief speech the Minister made, he should have told us more about the need for the Bill, which we support in principle, but also the need for the sweeping powers he asks for, such as are particularly contained in Clause 5.

Order! That can be more effectively dealt with in Committee.

Then may I deal with the clause in general, and its effect on those very authorities which are expected to co-operate with the Government and with the Commission—because they are still expected to cooperate, regardless of the accusation which have been hurled against them to-day. [Interjections.] When the Minister dealt with Clause 5, he said it was merely an extension of the provisions contained in the Act—presumably the principal Act—but that it would make that Act more effective, and he coupled that with the statement that since 1920 local authorities have allowed conditions to develop which compels the State to step in. Now, if you take a look at Clause 5 you may well wonder why it is necessary to go to the lengths of the clause as printed; e.g., if, in general terms, it is necessary to change by-laws in order to deal, as the clause does, with methods of building and types of building material and new methods of construction, one wonders why we have to come to the stage where even the right to decide how and where that dwelling shall be sited on an erf, is no longer the function of the local authority. I am not discussing the sub-clause in detail, but I am discussing the effect of this clause in all its provisions— whereas hon. members opposite have leaned very heavily on only one, which is the change in regard to the nature of building construction and the materials to be employed. But there is a great deal more—it incorporates a number of other provisions which have nothing whatever to do with the methods of construction. So I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they will be good enough, since the Minister has not dealt with this aspect of the matter, to explain why the further sub-division of land in a township must be dealt with as it is dealt with in this clause. Hon. members should surely want to question, e.g., why endowment and the payment of endowment is done away with completely by this clause: and as for the restrictions on the transfer of land, this has nothing to do with building construction methods or with the nature of the materials used, whether they are prefabricated or fabricated on the site, or the conventional brick and mortar or concrete and steel. Hon. members opposite will surely want to ask why these provisions are also incorporated in the same clause, and why these powers should have to be given to the Minister. When one considers that the Minister has indicated that all is well in all the fields of housing in South Africa because of the powers with which he has already been armed, and that there will be a great improvement if he is armed with these additional powers asked for in this clause, one is entitled to point out to the Minister that there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction not merely about the dearth of housing, with which I do not propose to deal, but with the nature and quality of the housing provided by the latest and most modern methods which do meet with the approval of the Minister. [Interjection.] One is entitled to ask the Minister whether he is aware of these comments which have appeared in the local Press very recently, in the Cape Times of 27 February this year, where there is a reference to mass produced houses at Guguletu. We have been told that because of our housing legislation, even without this Bill, we have the finest instrument for housing in the world.

Order: The hon. member must come back to this Bill.

May I point to the fact that the nature of the construction methods …

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

I want to deal with 5 (1) (b).

The hon. member can do that in Committee. He must come back to the Bill now or resume his seat.

Then I want to say about the Bill—in general terms, since I can only speak about it in general terms—that it seems that the Bill itself is not a complete solution to the housing problems which confront the Minister, the Government and the people of South Africa. It is not sufficient to legislate on the basis that because you control every detail of the procedure, every detail of the nature of the materials, the construction methods, the sitting of the house, the question of sub-division—everything that has any bearing at all on the matter—that you are then automatically assured of good housing. My reason for saying that is that inevitably any government and any minister, including this Minister, as determined as he may be, will come up against the fact that he does need the co-operation at least of the local authorities which wish to co-operate. I am amazed that this very simple point seems to have been overlooked completely by hon. members on the other side in discussing this Bill, because the hon. the Minister himself has told the Committee that by and large the local authorities of South Africa have co-operated and do cooperate in the provision of housing. Now, Sir, I want to ask this: If the hon. Minister considers the simple fact that since he has already got to the stage where most, if not all, of these local authorities are co-operating without any such legislation being forced on them, is there not something to be said for trying to ensure, not that those who are already co-operating are maneouvred into a position where they have no function and no authority in housing in their own area (which will be the effect of part of Clause 5), but that measures should rather be taken against recalcitrant local authorities, those recalcitrant local authorities who appear to be known to hon. members on the other side of the House, who appear to be known to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan)—he refuses to mention them, but they must certainly be known to the hon. the Minister. Would it not be better, fairer and simpler to proceed to legislate against those recalcitrant local authorities, to ensure that the unwilling ones are compelled to co-operate with the Department over which the hon. the Minister presides? That, I think, is germane to the whole discussion, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an answer to this question—because without that answer, while we have already said that we support the principle of the Bill because of the urgent need for housing, we believe and we will continue to believe that the provisions of the Bill are of such a nature as to take the measure generally, going as far as it does go, way out of the line of the normal procedure that the Government should adopt vis-à-vis the local authorities. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with that matter when he rises to reply.

We on this side of the House wholeheartedly support this Bill. That is really the difference between ourselves and hon. members on the other side; the way in which they support this Bill is to criticize it …

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

We on this side give our wholehearted support to this Bill because it makes special provision to meet a need in our national life.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly, already; it is not necessary to emphasize it again.

I will try then to raise a few new points in respect of this Bill, because we on this side feel that this is an important piece of legislation that we have before the House. The provision that is being made here to promote family life is extremely important.

Order! That relates to the principal Act; it has nothing to do with this Bill.

Sir, I do not want to go into the specific clauses but I just want to point out in general that hon. members on the other side object to certain principles contained in this Bill. It is precisely on the ground of the particular principles to which reference has been made here that we feel that it is so essential to place this measure on the Statute Book. Reference has been made here to Clause 5 (b), amongst other things, which gives certain powers to the Minister. Hon. members on that side object to the granting of those powers to the Minister. We on this side feel that it is essential to grant these powers to the Minister to enable him to meet the need that exists to build houses for our population. The need to provide housing is a very serious one, and we who come into contact with the voters in our constituencies realize how extremely essential and important it is to build houses. However, we must not only say that we are going to build houses; we must remove all the stumbling-blocks which sometimes make it impossible for the Minister to provide the necessary housing. Steps are being taken under this measure to remove those stumbling-blocks.

Order! The hon. member can raise those matters in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, mentioned the fact that we should get on with the job of building houses. When I listened to the Minister introducing this Bill I was filled with the hope that this was a step towards the provision of more housing for our people. The hon. the Minister, in support of this Bill, stressed the necessity of providing more housing. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has dealt in some detail with the shortage of housing amongst the various racial groups. I think he has adequately stated the attitude of the Opposition and that is that we will give all the support we can to the Government in an attempt to make more housing available. Clause 5 substitutes a new section for Section 44 of the principal Act. It exempts the commission from certain by-laws and from the provisions of a town planning scheme of a local authority. I think the mechanics of finding ways and means of providing more housing constitutes the most important principle in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated that there is a necessity to increase those powers so as to bring into their ambit exemption from town planning schemes of local authorities. This particular aspect is one which we naturally view with a certain degree of trepidation as far as these extended powers are concerned. The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, indicated that he intended moving an amendment in the Committee Stage under which consultation with the Administrators would be necessary. I believe that would be an improvement to the Bill in the form it now stands. Looking at this Bill from the aspect of whether it will provide the necessary machinery to build more houses is. I think, a very important factor. I think we have to find ways and means of reducing the red tape. In other words, if we can reduce the red tape, do less talking and provide more houses, we shall then be meeting this very long-felt need as far as housing is concerned.

In regard to this question of providing additional housing and the exemption from the town planning scheme of local authorities, I looked to see what provision already existed in the machinery that is provided for more houses. I should like to say that the Minister and his Department are to be complimented on the compilation of a housing code which sets out in a great deal of detail the machinery that does exist under the present Housing Act to provide more housing. The more I studied this housing code the more did I realize that the Minister and the commission already has vast powers. That is why we have to view the additional step which is being taken here whereby further exemption is sought, exemption from town planning schemes, from the angle of whether or not it is justified. When looking at this housing code I find that this is a guide which I am sure will be of great assistance to local authorities throughout the country. It will to some extent obviate certain difficulties and delays which exist in the provision of additional housing.

Order! That is something apart from this Bill. It has no direct bearing on this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to indicate what the existing powers are and why it is deemed necessary to extend those powers in terms of this Bill. I am trying to make the point that the powers which exist already enables the commission to deal with cases of dilatoriness on the part of local authorities. It is provided here that unless the local authorities have proceeded with their schemes after a period of six months the commission has certain powers which are outlined. These existing powers are now being amended and substituted by the new Clause 5 and the principle involved in the extension of those powers in terms of the substitution of Section 44 of the principal Act, is that it now aims to include a town planning scheme. In that respect this housing code sets out the Department’s requirements in regard to town planning. This is a guide to local authorities. It means that in terms of the Bill which is now before us the Housing Commission will be exempt from the various regulations and also from the town planning schemes of those local authorities.

The point I want to make is this, that in terms of this housing code, on page 28 where, it deals with town planning schemes, it says, this—

That is the machinery which is already provided for and outlined in this particular housing code. The question arises whether it is really necessary for the hon. the Minister to take this additional power in terms of this Bill. I think the hon. the Minister should explain more fully to the House what he has in mind and what the reasons are for asking for these additional powers. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, mentioned the fact that there were certain difficulties such as local authorities having town planning schemes in the course of preparation. That is perhaps the main stumbling block as far as the Government is concerned. But before these powers were sought the hon. the Minister had already embarked upon and made an announcement in regard to his crash housing programme. My point is this: Was the Minister aware of this stumbling block and did he anticipate that it would be necessary to introduce a Bill of this type extending the powers of the Commission prior to making the announcement that this housing crash programme could be completed or was hoped to be completed within a period of 18 months. I think the hon. the Minister has made great strides in providing housing of adequate standards and in using more modern methods of construction. I don’t intend going into the details of this clause, but it also deals with the types of houses involved. I know the hon. the Minister will be strongly guided by the Louw Report which was a report on prefabricated building elements and certain other building material and building methods. This is a very important document which makes certain recommendations as far as building regulations are concerned. They recommend that those regulations should be uniform throughout the four provinces. It also makes important recommendations as a result of a survey and an inquiry they had with the building research section of the C.S.I.R. and the examination of other new modern methods of construction. The important point as far as the method of construction is concerned, is this additional power to be exempt from the town-planning scheme, and it is one that requires a statement from the hon. the Minister to ensure that those persons who already own property and who are somewhat concerned that the commission might use these vast powers that are going to be provided for in this Bill to bring forward their own town-planning scheme in close proximity to their existing properties. Many of these people view with a certain degree of worry and anxiety the possibility that the Housing Commission may embark upon their own scheme close proximity to their existing properties. They fear that the properties that are to be erected by the Housing Commission will not be of a sufficiently high enough standard to fit into the general area and that it might result in the depreciation of their own property. That is why I hope that the hon. Minister will give an assurance that such a scheme as he envisages, the exemption of which he will receive from local authorities, will not mean that properties of an inferior type will be erected in an area in close proximity of perhaps a residential area of a high standard.

The other steps that the hon. Minister has taken without the provisions of this Bill, was the establishment in the Durban area of a committee, which he announced the other day, a committee consisting of members of his Department and representatives of the Durban City Council, and according to a statement made by the Mayor of Durban, this was in order to sweep away red-tape that had been holding up the council’s crash housing programmes. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is his intention to establish similar committee’s in the other main local authority areas where an acute shortage of housing also exists. We are pleased that the hon. Minister has indicated that he intends moving an amendment during the Committee Stage so as to bring about consultation with the Administrators. At the same time we can only see a success of a speed-programme if it is carried out in full consultation with the local authorities, and in addition to that of course we realize that the hon. Minister is faced with the difficulty of materials and the extreme manpower shortage in the building industry. However, we are dealing here with the question of providing the mechanics to provide more housing for the people, and let us hope that from these provisions and these additional powers which are being given to the Minister, we will see a vast improvement in the situation. We had hoped that last year’s amendment to the Housing Act was going to provide the necessary machinery for the more expeditious establishment of more housing units throughout the Republic. Unfortunately, the advance has not been as great as one might have hoped, the backlog has increased and there is still an acute shortage. It is hoped that the powers that are going to be taken in this Bill will achieve the end of providing more houses that are urgently needed for that section of the people who require housing.

This is one of the shorter Bills with which we have to deal this Session. It is a Bill of very great importance, both in respect of its contents and its object. I would like to say that I hope that when this Bill is passed into law, it is going to give the Minister, as he said in his second-reading speech, powers which are essential to enable him to play the part which he would like to play in dealing with the housing problems of this country.

As I say, the Bill vests very great powers in the hon. Minister, and I believe that it will be necessary when it comes to the Committee Stage, to go into considerable detail with the hon. Minister so that he can tell us exactly the powers he proposed to exercise and the field which he desires to cover. I would like to raise some of the matters at this point very briefly with the hon. the Minister because they are of very great importance. The powers contained in the proposed Section 44, as it will be after amendment, are powers which not only put the Minister in a very strong position, but which, if properly exercised, can be of very great importance as far as this country is concerned. Sir, one of the things which have unquestionably delayed housing in this country is the out-of-date regulations which many of our cities have in respect of housing, and the fact that the attempts to get away from the standardized methods which have been adopted over a long period of years, have been frustrated, and this has unquestionably been a limiting factor. The powers in this Bill (I cannot go beyond the Bill) give the Minister the right to sweep those powers aside, but they do not really deal fully with the problem because the existing regulations restrict the efforts of others who are working in the housing field as well. I am referring in particular to out-of-date building regulations by which the Minister will no longer be bound. He has full power here to streamline the position and to use materials at present not allowed by building regulations. The Bill is quite specific in giving those powers to the hon. Minister. He will not be subject to restrictions which have, I believe, restricted building in South Africa and thereby have increased the housing shortage from which this country is suffering at the present time. I can only express the hope that in the exercise of these powers great responsibility will be exercised. Of this I have no doubt that there will be consultation with local authorities. But I do express the hope that as a result of the exercise of these powers, new and improved methods of construction which we know have been evolved in various parts of the world will become possible as a result of the exercise of these powers. This applies particularly in the use of materials and of methods of construction which will depart from the completely out-o-date methods which have limited housing construction in this country over a long period. I hope that if the hon. the Minister is successful in bringing about a change in this respect; that he will, through the proper channels, bring pressure to bear on the municipalities to do away with these regulations which apply not only to one city in South Africa, but in most of our major cities and most of the smaller towns. In respect of this matter, I can only wish the Minister good luck in his effort to bring about a change. I hope it will not be left there because I do not believe that in this country we cannot afford to continue on the basis that something which is a dire necessity as far as the public is concerned should be delayed by provisions which should have been taken off our Statute Book a long time ago. While I welcome this provision in the Bill, I want to tell the Minister that a great responsibility rests upon him in the exercise of these powers, and I think the Minister realizes this. I know, e.g. of certain plans the Minister has in my constituency, and I am very glad to say that persons who have seen the plans in the course of tendering tell me that the standard of dwelling to be erected is fully in line with existing houses in that neighbourhood. Obviously these powers allow the Minister to sweep across provisions such as the number of houses which can be built on a particular plot of land. This could be misused. I most sincerely hope that apart from getting down to the job of dealing with this tremendous problem the Minister will show the utmost reasonableness in maintaining the standards which have been set while using new methods, and maintaining the general attractiveness of most of the new residential areas which have grown up around our major cities. The Minister, I believe, can set a very good example if he continues on the lines on which he has started, by providing attractive dwellings. Where he does find it necessary to sweep across something which has been accepted in the form of town planning regulations, I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that there will be no departure from the standards we have seen in the new towns and villages going up. I believe that this Bill can result in an improvement in housing and lead to the adoption of new methods of construction which I believe are long overdue in this country. But above all I hot>e that in the exercise of these powers there will be a degree of care which will lead to the maintenance of the splendid standards which in my opinion private enterprise has set in recent years in providing really attractive neighbourhood units which are a credit to this country.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has made a very interesting contribution to the debate, and I want to thank him for it because I think we are not sufficiently aware of the absolute necessity to make a break-through in South Africa with regard to the utilization of new materials and new building methods. The hon. member is perfectly correct in saying that the powers for which we are asking here in Clause 5 are largely powers which relate to the problem of the use of new methods. Last year when we amended the Housing Act, we gave certain powers to the local authorities with a view to enabling them to act more expeditiously and more efficiently and to make use of new building methods. I just want to read out to hon. members what amendments we effected to show how important this step is. In Section 55 of the Act we brought about amendments which are tantamount to the following—

We then found, after we had given these powers to the local authorities and to the utility companies, that as a result of the interpretation placed upon the Act, these powers were not in fact available to the National Housing Commission; and the main reason why we are coming forward with this amendment now is to make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that the National Housing Commission will have the same powers as those granted to the local authorities last year in this connection.

Is it the intention that in every case where the Minister makes use of these powers, it will be done in consultation with the municipality concerned?

Yes, that is always done.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned until to-morrow.

I move—

We have now reached the Third Reading of this Bill. During the course of the other stages we have expressed, I think very clearly, our opposition to this measure. We are still opposed to it in the form in which it stands before us now.

The Bill itself re-states and widens all those powers which were previously contained in the Group Areas Development Act insofar as the implementation of group areas were concerned. It is true that it has been re-named and that it is now called the Community Development Bill, but all the terms and all the conditions to which we objected when it was in fact the Group Areas Development Bill are now transferred to an area which is not in fact a group area but becomes the whole of the Republic of South Africa. The effect of this will be to make this hon. Minister the greatest controller of land in the Republic. It puts to us an entirely new principle, as we understand it, in the development of land and in dealing with land in South Africa. Up to now the method of handling our lands and developing our townships has been through the various bodies which have been established by the laws of this land and whose powers have always entitled them to develop the areas over which they have authority, in the manner in which that particular community would like its affairs handled and developed. But now those powers are brushed aside. This Bill now vests in this Minister the power to take out of the hands of those local authorities, whether they be city or town councils or provincial councils, all the authority which they previously had. It is true that the Minister and his Department, under other measures, had certain powers to interfere in the affairs of local authorities, but in all those measures we have tried from time to time to ensure that there was adequate consultation between those local authorities and the Government Departments administering the various laws. That consultation has now been diminished; it has been diminished to a stage where, although the Minister has been prepared to insert in this Bill what he will in fact consult with the Administrator, it really means nothing and it is no guarantee whatsoever to those local authorities that they in fact have to be consulted. This is an aspect of the Bill to which we particularly object. We know that certain local authorities from time to time are dilatory perhaps in carrying out their duties but we still believe that where the spirit of co-operation exists on both sides, these obstacles can be overcome and that the job which has to be done can be done anyway.

It must come from two sides.

This Bill also introduces two new terms into our legislation, terms which are undefined and which remain undefined now that we have come to the end of the discussion on this Bill. I refer to the terms “community development” and “urban renewals scheme”. I accept that the term “community development” is probably a generally understood term, and the necessity for its definition was perhaps not very great until we came to Clause 19 of this Bill under which the hon. the Minister can appoint inspectors to go into properties to gather information which he requires, and whereas before this clause was confined specifically to proclaimed group areas it is now extended to any designated area; in other words, it can now happen in any area in which the hon. the Minister is interested from the point of view of development. He can now appoint inspectors to go into those areas and glean whatever information he wants and to question any person he wishes to be questioned; he can also demand that whatever documents he wants must be produced. Sir, in the case of group areas this Government was implementing its policy, and it proclaimed these areas, and these actions by inspectors were in fact confined to those specific areas. Those confines are now broken and these inspectors, on the instructions of the Minister, can now go into any area which he designates as an area in which he is going to carry out community development and they can interrogate anybody at any reasonable time and they can ask for whatever information they want. We believe that this is a further infringement upon the rights of people.

The other term which this Bill introduces and which remains undefined at this stage—and I think this is a very important term—is the term “urban renewal scheme”. Sir, this introduces an aspect into this legislation which I find quite frightening, because an urban renewal scheme means, as I understand it, having dealt with this Bill, and having attended the debate on it in this House in all the stages, that the hon. the Minister can decide to go into any area, where he will be exempted by this Bill from the provisions of a town planning scheme and from municipal regulations and by-laws, and declare it an urban renewal scheme. We do not quite know what an urban renewal scheme means but we do know that if he goes into that area and declares it an urban renewals scheme, he can do a lot of things which we believe invade the rights of property owners in that area. For example, he can sub-divide or re-divide the land. He can decide for himself the number of buildings which he is going to put on each piece of land. He can do all those things which basically can affect the rights of the small man, who has established his home, has always enjoyed. Sir, this problem is one which worries us considerably because in spite of any assurances that the Minister might give us that he will not use these powers for these purposes. we have to accept the fact that they are contained in this Bill and that this Bill does confer upon the Minister the right and the power to do these things. Sir. I give the hon. the Minister full credit for the fact that he has been prepared to consider an amendment suggested from this side. I do not know if he has arrived at a decision about that amendment yet, but I sincerely hope that with the assistance of his legal advisers we will be able to come to some arrangement and that he will be able to introduce an amendment in the Other Place which will in fact meet the problem with which we are faced in this Bill.

Another aspect of this Bill which we do not like but which we are prepared to concede is possibly necessary to some extent, is the new provision for the freezing of properties in a slum area. Sir. this is also something new and something which I do not not think the Minister has explained fully. He says that he wants the right to control buildings in areas in which he has certain development plans. I do not think that the hon. the Minister has given us adequate explanation of his exact intentions. I think there is one question which remains unanswered, and that is the question as to whether any buildings can be frozen which are not in fact in that area but which serve that area, and I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this in his reply. This is a question which arises from this clause. For example, if the hon. the Minister decides to clear a slum area and he can accommodate the people during the course of that clearance in a building which is on the fringe of that area, has he the right under this clause to freeze that building too although it is perhaps not within the confines of that slum area? I am not sure whether that can happen; the point has been put to me, so I raise it here to give the Minister the opportunity to reply. This Bill also has the effect of altering the definition of a defined area, which means that the Minister and his Department can now set themselves up as a local authority in any area which is a designated area. Sir, that is an extension of power. We can visualize that this provision might well in the future cause a clash with established local authorities because it can, of course, establish them in areas where local authorities already hold sway. I believe that this is a provision which should be used with care and with caution. It is a provision which I would prefer not to see in this Bill.

Sir, there are some good provisions in this Bill, although not many. One of those provisions deals with the question of compensation for goodwill. We have already expressed our opinion in that regard. I am very sorry that we have been unable to impress upon the Minister the fact that one year’s net profit for goodwill for the loss of a business is quite insufficient and quite unrealistic. The hon. the Minister was quite adamant on this point and I am very sorry that he was. I sincerely hope that he will reconsider this aspect.

The other provisions that we do not like are the extraordinary measures which are being taken under this Bill to get rid of tenants from an area which has become a designated area. In the past the law as it stood made adequate provision, we believe, for getting rid of people who do not pay their rent or who do not fulfill their agreements but, Sir, the average private landlord copes with this situation very well. There are few landlords who find themselves unable for any reason at all to get rid of a tenant who is an undesirable tenant or a tenant who does not pay his rental, but in those cases they do it according to the due processes of law; both sides may appeal to the courts and both sides are bound by the decision of the court. Now, under Clause 8 of this Bill, that is no longer necessary.

We also believe, in connection with the eviction of these people, that the period of notice is quite inadequate, in spite of the fact that the hon. the Minister says that he never gives less than 30 days or three months’ notice, I think he said. In spite of that, it is provided in the Bill that he can give this lesser period of seven days by way of notice. In those circumstances we must take exception to it. Sir, in the case of the cancellation of leases we can appreciate that the Minister must have some powers, if he is going to develop an area, to cancel leases in that area, and we are pleased to see that he has decided to give compensation deals improvements—and the compensation deals only with improvements—but I would like to ask him this: Should this be in the case of a business, will the goodwill clause apply in these particular cases as well? I do not know at the moment whether this provision will apply in both cases; whether a man will be entitled to goodwill or whether he will get compensation for improvements because his lease has been cancelled, or whether in fact he will qualify for both. I sincerely hope that in the case of an established business he will qualify for both.

Sir, I have dealt with the question of inspection. We do not like the thought and the idea contained in this Bill that the ordinary person living in an area which is not a group area, can be subjected to questioning and query. The hon. the Minister said in his reply yesterday that he cannot get this information anywhere else. I believe that this information could be obtained from other sources. It depends entirely, of course, upon how much information the Minister wants and whether in fact he wants unnecessary information or too much information, but I believe that the basic information which he requires is readily available, and I sincerely hope that in the application of this clause the ordinary householder, who is going to fall within the ambit of this Bill, is not going to be subjected to constant worry and inspection by inspectors appointed under Clause 19.

There is one other point that I want to mention at this stage—unfortunately I was absent when it was discussed—is the question of the Administrator. In the principal Act, as the hon. the Minister knows, the term “administrator” means the administrator-in-executive committee, and it says so in the first Section of the Act. I understand that the hon. the Minister had discussions with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) in this regard. I believe there was some difficulty about arranging that “administrator” in this Bill should mean the same as it means in the principal Act, the Group Areas Act, and the suggestion was that just a few words should be omitted …

I have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North).

I am very pleased indeed to hear that. That removes one of our worries about this Bill as it was that “administrator” would mean something different in this particular Bill from what it meant in the principal Act.

To sum up, Sir, we do not like legislation of this type; we do not like this extension of powers. We believe that what the hon. the Minister is setting out to achieve could equally well be achieved by other measures, although we realize that he has to have certain powers to control authorities who are responsible for these jobs. Under these circumstances we must oppose this Bill.

The hon. member’s dutiful protest against the third reading has really convinced me that the existence of the United Party as an opposition is merely a dutiful one. These gentlemen exist as an opposition for the simple reason that they do not know how to get out of their misery. I agree it is a serious problem and we must simply leave it to the electorate. To come to the concrete points of difference I want to say in the first place that we on this side of the House welcome and accept this Bill as it has now been amended because of this crucial point: We welcome the fact that the concept “community development” has been widened to extend beyond merely group area development. At least three of the various points of objection raised by hon. members opposite dealt precisely with this widening of the concept “development” to extend beyond mere group area development. We have learnt in practice that, in spite of the fact that the development of proclaimed group areas is a designated and an unavoidable task because people who do not qualify have to be removed and substituted by people who do qualify, it is often urgently necessary, when it comes to the physical development of an area, to develop the adjoining areas as well. When we consider the task of the Minister not only from the point of view that he must convert an area which has been declared a group area from an area inhabited by people who do not qualify to live there to an area inhabited by people who are qualified to live there but from the point of view of physically reconstructing residential areas for the various sections of our community we can only welcome these powers the hon. the Minister is taking, powers which enable him to widen the field of operation of the Community Development Board to extend beyond the narrow concept of group areas. If we accept this principle we see where the basic difference between us and the Opposition lies, except that we once again have to emphasize this that we on this side of the House want the Group Areas Development Act to function; we are anxious to establish ways and means to make the Act function more smoothly. Because hon. members opposite are not interested in putting into practice the idea of group areas, they are against the granting of powers to the Minister which will make it easier to apply the Act.

To come to the specific objections raised by hon. members on that side: The Opposition adopt the attitude that the Minister, in cooperation with the Community Development Board, or the Board itself, is being empowered to by-pass certain town planning schemes and certain regulations entrenched in provincial or municipal ordinances in connection with the development of an area in order to accelerate development. In this connection I just want to re-state three points. I just want to state them without emphasizing them unduly. The first is that this party and the Government say clearly that hon. gentlemen opposite place a wrong interpretation on the traditional way of legislating in the Republic of South Africa, namely, that certain powers have been delegated to local authorities, sacrosanct powers with which the Central Government cannot interfere. We refer in this connection to the constitutional position—I think the powers of the provinces are set out in Section 84—that nowhere is reference made to municipal powers, let alone town planning powers; that the entrenching section in respect of the provincial powers, Section 114, refers back to Section 84 but that Section 92 of the Constitution refers specifically to municipal powers and provides that the powers municipalities had at the time the Constitution was accepted should remain in force. They are not even specifically entrenched in the Constitution in so far as they are entrenched. But, more important than that, we on this side of the House adopt the attitude that in a unitary state, such as our State, when the Central Government at any time takes powers unto itself which it has lent to subordinate governmental body it is not a case of it having acted improperly or of it having violated tradition from a constitutional point of view. All the powers of a unitary state like our State belong to the Central Government and the customary distribution of those powers to geographically decentralized governmental bodies does not detract from the principle that the Central Government has the right to take those powers back unto itself as and when it is necessary. That is the first point I want to make as far as this matter is concerned.

In that case you destroy local government.

You will only destroy local government if you are stupid enough to withdraw all power in one fell swoop; that is not relevant here. What is relevant here is the constitutional correctness, the propriety, the good taste, from a constitutional law point of view, on the part of the Central Government to take back unto itself any powers it has handed over to local, decentralized bodies.

The second point at issue in this connection is the entire concept of planning in South Africa. Let me say this to hon. members opposite: As a result of the historical circumstances prevailing in South Africa we have never yet done justice to the planning of our urban and peri-urban areas. The Provinces have stepped in to fill the vacuum which has come into existence and our cities have stepped in with their planning to a limited extent but a determined effort has never yet been made either by the old Union authorities or by the Republic of South Africa to tackle seriously the very important question of making a survey of the planning in our urban areas; and this is such an important function of the State that, as far as we are concerned, we do not have the slightest doubt that it is the duty of the Central Government to give the lead in planning the whole of South Africa and to lay down in principle, the basic direction and lines to be followed. That is why we fully agree that a Minister of the Central Government should have the right to step in where necessary when it comes to planning in order to achieve the limited object envisaged in this Bill. As a matter of fact we would be in favour of much wider powers in regard to planning, powers which we believe to be necessary and which we believe can only be supplied to the country in a co-ordinated form ex the Central Government.

The third aspect I want to deal with in connection with this interference with local and provincial enactments—the Minister has placed great emphasis on this—is this that in connection with the provision of housing we have reached a stage where new techniques and new prospects await us while our planning schemes and often the conditions of title of the past do not as yet take into account the presence of these new techniques. In order to apply these new techniques it is, from the nature of things, essential and unavoidable that the Minister should be able to cut right across those limiting provisions which make the application of those new techniques difficult or impossible. Let us even forget about new techniques; let us for a moment think of the problems which are created by the lack of standardization in South Africa because of the differences you find from one city council to the other in respect of many aspects of building, building regulations and so fourth. Obviously we cannot expect the Central Government which has to provide housing to regard itself as bound by the irrational, unstandardized building regulations in operation in various parts of the country.

I do not want to deal at length with the few points raised by the hon. member for Umlazi. They relate to certain objections regarding the inspectors. It was the same point I have already dealt with, namely, that the Minister was now getting the right to exercise his powers over an area wider than a group area. Let me just remind the hon. member that in terms of Section 12(1) the Minister has to announce in which additional area the inspector may act. It is not a question of an inspector acting in an arbitrary fashion. In the long run I think we can depend on the good judgment of the Minister not to proclaim areas unnecessarily. It is therefore not a question of the-ordinary householder being subjected to visits by the inspectors.

The hon. member also raised the question of the freezing of property in urban renewal areas and slum areas. That is the new Section 12(1). I do not want to undertake the task of the Minister but it is perfectly clear that freezing can only set in in the circumscribed area. It is very obvious why there must be freezing. It sets in because in the immediate for see able future the Minister wants to do replanning and rebuilding in that area. Surely the owners cannot be allowed, on the eve of a new building scheme, to change existing structures and then either expect the State to compensate them for the changes effected, changes which are useless in any case, or lose their money. I think the attack on this clause is the most unfortunate attack launched by the hon. member.

Then we have the question of the definition of “urban renewal scheme”. I think we are all agreed that if and when we or the Minister finds a good definition it will be inserted. We are all agreeable in principle; it is only the ingenuity that is lacking. The hon. member has once again attacked the State’s right to shorten the procedure and the question of goodwill which will only be paid in respect of one year. I do not wish to repeat the argument in connection with the collection of rent. In terms of our Constitutional Law the State is regarded as a decent person; that extraordinary powers can be entrusted to the State which you will not entrust to an individual; that there is no reason to criticize the granting of extraordinary powers to the State unless you can prove that those powers have been abused. That is something which has fortunately never yet happened in South Africa. The State has never yet even been criticized for having abused its extraordinary powers in the field of civil law.

I want to conclude by saying a few words on the question of goodwill. The hon. member for Umlazi was a little apologetic for having criticized the Minister for this amendment to the Act, an amendment which enables the Minister to compensate a disqualified person for one year’s goodwill.

Don’t say too much about that; the Minister’s heart has already softened.

I shall make his heart even softer. I say the hon. member was apologetic about criticizing the Minister because what actually happens is this: The public who are affected by the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act are treated very magnanimously. But instead of saying “thank you” for the magnanimous way in which they are being treated we are immediately told that they are not being treated magnanimously enough. Where this Act has been on the Statute Book for a number of years without any provision being made for the payment of compensation in respect of goodwill I think we should be grateful for two things: Firstly, that provision is now being made for the payment of compensation in respect of goodwill for one year and, secondly, let us be grateful to the Government for having disclosed a frame of mind of wanting to face up to this question of goodwill. Let us give the Minister a chance to administer the law for a year or two on the basis of goodwill for one year. By that time it will undoubtedly have become clear whether it is possible to make more liberal provision in this connection. We on this side of the House are as anxious as hon. members opposite that the inhabitants and citizens of South Africa are not disappointed in the way the administration of the country affects them. We want to do justice to everybody. But we do not want to insert a provision which will get us into trouble in that an excessive financial burden will be placed on the State or which may create administrative problems which we will hardly be able to cope with.

The hon. member who has just sat down first of all decried the effort of this side of the House to criticize this Bill and to oppose the principle contained in this Bill and further said he did not think it was one which merited much concern. He then proceeded to spend quite some time trying to justify the purpose of this legislation. It reminded me somewhat of small town governments both here, in the United States and in other countries, in which sections of the administration tried to build an empire for themselves. It seems to me that with this Bill, which we on this side of the House think is completely unnecessary for the purpose the hon. the Minister alleges he wants it, the Minister is trying to justify his appointment as Minister of Housing not merely by carrying out the duties laid down in the Housing Act and other Statutes, but by introducing an entirely new conception of housing and town planning; in fact, that he wants to take over into his Ministry all the planning for the whole country. I think I have said before that this is part of a pattern which is becoming very clear to us. It is a desire to control every phase of the life of the country. With this Bill the Minister is virtually trying to take control of the physical side of South Africa, as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) put it, and to do the development through the Department of Community Development as the hon. the Minister now designates the Department in this Bill. I do agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park that if the Government wants to do anything at all, it wants to get rid of this unpleasant word “group areas”. It is something which has affected our image both here and abroad and something which we would do well to get rid of. The Minister seeks to do this under the nomenclature of “community development”. I don’t decry the effort to try to do something which can improve the image of South Africa but I do say this: It is not necessary to have a Bill of this nature. In trying to efface the unpleasant atmosphere that has been created it is not necessary to widen the powers so completely that, as has been said before, the Minister now virtually wants to emasculate all authority, authority which up to now has played an important part in this work. In a country so wide and broad as South Africa, a country with long distances which must cause costs to mount, I cannot understand why it is necessary to virtually interfere with the excellent work the various local authorities and provincial authorities have been doing over the years in their own areas so successfully and so ably in the interests of the development of our country. I well remember some 12 or 13 years ago when the country was faced with an even greater crisis in regard to community development when the hon. the Prime Minister was Minister of Native Affairs. He was faced with a colossal problem. Hundreds and thousands of persons were streaming into the country in order to find employment in the industrial revolution that was taking place in South Africa. They had to be housed. The position was chaotic both with regard to housing and health amenities, something which was endangering the stability of the community and also its health. What did the then Minister do? He co-operated with local authorities; he sought their assistance; he co-operated with the C.S.I.R., an important body in this country which deals with the latest techniques and new methods to which the hon. member for Kempton Park has referred. As a result of that the local authorities began to build houses. They did so at low costs; costs unheard of in the history of this country. A municipality like Johannesburg, for instance, built some 40,000 to 50,000 houses over a period of seven years.

Who built them?

If the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) is hot under the collar, I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister every credit for what he did at that time. It was my privilege to work very, closely with him on this very issue. I don’t need to be told by the little school children of the Reef who built houses. I don’t need to be told by them how the members of the Cabinet in those days co-operated with local authorities and how pleased local authorities were to play their part in that tremendous change in the community development of the country. We did not need Bills of this nature nor do we need Bills of this nature to-day, Sir. There is sufficient provision in the Housing Act and in the other laws which are already on the Statute Book, both with regard to the provision of funds and the necessary authority. There is sufficient power to enable this to be done satisfactorily.

What did your party say about the powers which the Prime Minister took then?

I am talking from the point of view of the work that was achieved. My party, if they criticized, must have had good reason to do so. I am concerned at the moment with the fact that it is not necessary to have a Bill of this nature. I want to say to the hon. the Minister who has introduced this Bill that he himself knows that in the case of Riverlea and Bosmot, for example, the relevant local authorities have been building houses.

Who built Bosmot?

I will not deny that the Department may have played a part. The Department built Meadowlands, for instance, based on the planning and the methods and the experience and with the help of the officials of the municipality of Johannesburg which was only too delighted to provide the skill and the experience necessary for that purpose. I say with the utmost modesty I was able to have one or two outstanding engineers of the City of Johannesburg seconded to assist in that work. Prof. Jennings, the professor of engineering at the Witwatersrand University, played a very important part in the section of housing development and techniques of the C.S.I.R. in those days. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister wants this Bill. Why does he suddenly decide that the development of the community life in South Africa in the physical sense demands a government department to take charge of it. He should be only too delighted with the work that is being done between local, provincial and government authority to attain one objective and that is to house the community. He knows that serious situations have on previous occasions arisen in this country. One does not want to repeat these things, it wastes the time of the House, but the Minister knows that the position at the end of World War II was worse than it is to-day with an immigration figure of 40,000 per annum. We would have been happy, if in following our policy, there were 100,000 immigrants a year to cater for. We would have been happy to share our houses as some of us had to do at that time and as they do in other countries where people are compelled to take in immigrants as lodgers so that they will have a roof over their heads. We have an immigration figure of 40,000, for which we are grateful, we hope it will increase, but it has not reached such proportions that a Minister must decide to elevate an ordinary ministry to one of the empires in the Cabinet. That is what the hon. Minister is seeking to do, Sir. It is not an uncommon practice. When you look at the different laws which have been passed in this House, laws where Ministers have taken fragmented departments, established fresh departments and then commenced to build empires, you realize that this is not an uncommon practice. I thought we had left the question of empire-building far behind us.

Just to give an example to the hon. the Minister why I think this Bill is completely unnecessary: He wishes to establish, as he calls it, a board with certain powers. What are these powers? He wants them to develop and assist in respect of such areas—not areas under the Group Areas Act—as he may from time to time designate in order to promote community development. This literally means that he can enter into any section of this country and decide to start building there. Surely it must be common sense that where you have a local authority, whether it be a municipality or a village management board or a village health committee, and you enter the field of these local authorities, you try to guide them, you provide the funds, you put ideas to them, you give them the opportunity of doing the work under proper guidance, that is a better way of making use of the already shrinking manpower we have in this country. Do you know what this can mean, Sir? It can mean a further demand for manpower, the overlapping of manpower, overlapping of thinking, waste of time in discussing things, waste of time in negotiations and consultations as to what is to take place. Hitherto the housing side of the country has worked very well. If the hon. member for Kempton Park wants to maintain that it is because of new methods and new ideas then is the next step going to be for the Ministry of Mines, for instance, to decide that because there are new methods in the field of mining to take over the whole of the mining industry? Must the Department of Mines, which is a junior ministry, suddenly become elevated to an empire? It will become the new Ministry of Mining Development in this country. There is something else. I can tell the hon. the Minister that there is some amazing development in regard to sewage disposal. [Interjections.] I do not even react to that remark on the part of the Minister. What I would like to say is this, that new methods are discovered daily in the various phases of the health of a country and community development. It is not necessary to create a ministry to make use of these new methods. Every local authority is only too delighted to be able to use new methods. With due respect to an ex-member of the Executive Committee of a Province, how can he say that we must not regard a province as holding holy and mighty powers? How can he disregard the tremendous part they have played? He says they have merely entered into a vacuum to try to play that part.

I am ashamed to hear an ex-member of the Executive Committee say that of an important province like the Transvaal. I hope the Cape members will forgive me for saying this. All the provincial authorities have done everything in their power to play an important part in this activity. I think we can be very proud in this country of the work our local and provincial authorities have done. If the hon. member for Brakpan wants credit for any member of the Government for the part he has played we are sufficiently generous as South Africans to give credit to all. We give everybody credit but let them continue to play their part. Do not ask us as an Opposition to assist in creating a fresh empire so that the hon. the Minister can do everything himself. There is one example of the completely unnecessary purpose of a Bill of this nature. We obviously have to deal with the details of this Bill and criticize them. In effect they are all of no value. The Minister can make all the amendments he wants to in regard to the Group Areas Development Act. Let him get rid of this as quickly as possible. Parliament put a limit on it until the year 1965. I understand the Minister even wants to extend that indefinitely. Hon. members with their own legislation, with their own “Frankenstein,” find themselves suddenly choked and now they are seeking a method of escape. The method of escape is to take something that is ugly and unpleasant, we clothe it and call it the new concept of community development in South Africa as if it has never been done in all the many years that this country has developed. What do tourists from abroad say about our cities and suburbs? They say it is wonderful to think that in a country like South Africa, a country far away from the centre of events, a country which is virtually young in every sense of the word, we have magnificent suburbs, outstanding gardens and development. We have done outstanding things in South Africa, things to which the world is prepared to pay homage. You, Mr. Speaker, know that visitors from abroad who have called on you personally have told you of the wonderful development they have seen in the Republic of South Africa, development in which every South African has played his part. We are not prepared to accept from any speaker on that side of the House, including the hon. the Minister, that a new concept of development has now come into being which requires the expansion of a ministry, entailing the taking over of powers and the decimation of the prestige and dignity of local authorities so that that department alone decides what must be done, how it should be done, when it should be done and where it should be done. No, Sir, that is not good legislation. This is not legislation which is necessary in the interests of the country.

There is the question of slum clearance. I would like to say this: The question of slum clearance has become a vital question to the hon. the Minister for a very simple reason. Instead of re-building and cleansing the established areas in our country it has become essential to his Government to uproot huge communities and transplant them elsewhere. That is why the Group Areas Development Act was brought into operation. Now, to do that one must rebuild virgin areas. and you must break down what already exists. Slums laws have dealt with this over the years but this is not something which was necessary in the country. We have developed traditionally over the years. Communities with a common interest, with a common religion, with a common thought and action, have settled themselves in a particular area. That is one of the natural reactions of human society throughout the world. It is one of the colourful things in South Africa we have founded. We have, in this beautiful part of the world, a part called the Cape. The Cape gives us an example of what this unfortunate new conception is going to do. It is going to take tradition, history and the colourful aspect of our life and clean it; it is going to make it into new marble statues; statues devoid of life, unappealing, just something ordinary; it is going to take away the attractiveness of virtually the mother soil of South Africa where our life started 300 years ago. That is what the hon. the Minister has in mind. He has not in mind a new conception of urban renewal development and schemes. Talk to the city engineers of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban and Bloemfontein …

Order! The hon. member is giving wings to his thoughts.

With your graceful guidance, Sir, I am going to conclude by saying this. We moved an amendment during the Second Reading to give expression to our thoughts.

I should like to say this: We think the hon. the Minister should have second thoughts. If he wishes to get rid of the words “group areas” good luck to him; we will help him to improve the image of South Africa to the best of our ability …

No, you won’t.

We do it daily. We will give him all the help we can. But let him not become an empire-builder which he will regret because he will not build an empire, Sir, he will be building something on sand. Because the local authorities and the provinces in our country are jealous of what they have done. They have every right to be. They are jealous in the interests of the community they represent.

I think we have long since listened to a more disparaging speech than the one we have just listened to. I can well understand why the hon. member has made such disparaging remarks and why the entire Opposition have been so disparaging in their remarks about this very neat piece of legislation. The legislation we have before us to-day gives form to an entirely new concept in the development of South Africa. The hon. member who has just sat down referred very disparagingly to the hon. Minister who, he alleged, just wanted to build “empires”; this Minister, in terms of this Bill, who he alleged now wanted to exercise control over the whole country; this Minister who wanted to control all the land in this country under this Bill. I fully understand why the hon. member has made such disparaging remarks. Hon. members opposite are very jealous of the good work this Minister is doing. They are jealous of the brilliant job of work this exceptionally capable young Minister is doing. Lacking any arguments we only had disparaging remarks from the hon. member. That impresses nobody most certainly not this side of the House. The hon. member says the hon. the Minister must rather co-operate with local authorities because if he does so he will be in a much better position to meet the housing needs and place the planning of our cities on a sound basis. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion and that is that in 90 cases out of 100 the method will and does indeed work. I maintain that this hon. Minister co-operates much better with local authorities than was even done in the past.

Why all these powers then?

Unfortunately not all city councils are controlled by supporters of this side of the House, city councils who deliberately do not want to co-operate. It takes two to co-operate. The hon. the Minister offers to co-operate but if he does not get the co-operation of the other side he is obliged to see to it that he has powers to compel them to do what is necessary in the interests of the country.

For the first time in its history our country now has a Department of Community Development to look after these matters. It is a new creation. Are hon. members jealous of this creation of the Government’s? Why do hon. members not once and for all accept this wonderful creation and give it an opportunity of making a beautiful country of South Africa? This legislation is only giving effect to the activities of a new and very promising department. This Department is in the course of changing the face of South Africa, and I am convinced that hon. members opposite will in future still claim this child as theirs. In spite of the sudden and marked swing to the right the United Party is apparently still opposed to group areas and that is why they are opposed to any powers this Government takes to apply legislation dealing with group areas. They are also doing so in the case of the legislation we are dealing with this afternoon. Had it not been for the fact that they were whole-heartedly opposed to all group area development the United Party would not have made such a fuss. But because the United Party, in spite of the marked swing to the right, are still at heart opposed to group areas, they oppose this legislation behind the smoke screen of trying to protect the powers and rights of local authorities. Their concern about the powers of local authorities is nothing but a smoke screen because the party is at heart not well disposed to the principle of group area development. No, we heartedly welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is taking power in this legislation to change the face of South Africa and to paint a new and beautiful picture to us.

Having listened to the arguments in both the second reading and the Committee Stages of this debate, it seems to me to be quite clear that this Bill represents an entirely new approach on the part of the Government to the whole principle of both land-ownership and land-distribution in South Africa at the present time. This becomes quite evident as soon as it is realized that this Community Development Bill, to be seen in its proper perspective, has to be read in conjunction with the two other pieces of legislation before the House this Session, the Housing Bill and the Group Areas Amendment Bill, both of which are on the Order Paper for discussion this week. What it amounts to is this: However much we may argue about the clauses of the Bill, the Government, in order to implement its apartheid policy, is claiming sweeping powers over private property such as we have never seen in the history of South Africa before. I would say this: Where else except in socialist or in Communistic countries will you find this concept of land being both controlled, and in some cases owned, and developed by the State? It is one thing to give a directive to local authorities, but quite another to take the powers that are envisaged in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Community Development Board, in terms of this Bill, is virtually exempt from the provisions of any by-law, town-planning scheme or regulation of a local authority and the conditions of establishment of any township is prescribed by any Administrator, it is exempt from the provisions laid down by any townships commission or townships board, and is exempt from the provisions of any ordinance in terms whereof approval must be obtained from a local authority for the subdivision of land. Mr. Speaker, that is a very frightening innovation. The Bill itself represents a serious inroad, and I think we cannot emphasize that enough, upon the recognized rights of private property-owners in South Africa. We do not like it at all, and we have made that quite clear. In South Africa land is privately owned, but in this legislation, and in the other two Bills which are coming up for discussion this week, there is startling evidence, and very clear evidence, that the State is intent upon radically extending its powers to interfere with the use and the nature of the ownership of private, domestic and industrial land in South Africa. The position is this: When the Minister of Planning can decide into what group areas he will divide South Africa, when he can decide, where members of all race groups will be allowed to own or occupy or use property, when he has this power untrammelled by any control of Parliament, a provision which is contained in the draft Bill to amend the Group Areas Act and which now before the House, and when the Minister of Community Development can come along in terms of this Bill and decide, with equally far-reaching powers, just how these areas are to be developed and at what speed, then I would ask the House what fundamental rights are left to the private property-owner in South Africa? You see, Mr. Speaker, we consider that the South African public has every cause to feel alarmed. The powers given to the hon. the Minister in this Bill, as has already been pointed out, do not stop at his providing accommodation in group areas for people displaced from another group area. That has been his function up to the present time. Now he will be empowered to take a long-established area, which may well have been occupied by one particular racial group for a long time, and he will now be empowered to change its whole character by declaring it to be subject to what he calls “an urban renewal scheme”, a term which the Minister’s department is unable to define. This is a very dangerous precedent indeed. Already the group areas legislation in South Africa has become so complicated that the public is baffled by it; the country is smothered by laws and regulations, and the people in South Africa do not know whether they are coming or going in regard to this legislation. That is a fact. The important thing for South Africans to realize, particularly those who live in crowded urban areas, is that no-one can really any longer be certain of any security of tenure, whether they are owners of private property, or in whatever other capacity they happen to occupy it. That is what this Bill really means and it is a wretched situation in which to find ourselves.

In replying to arguments in the Committee Stage, the hon. Minister in trying to justify the assumption of arbitrary powers for development purposes, made a very astonishing statement. This is what he said—

How the need to introduce new and up-to-date building techniques and methods for housing purposes can possibly be equated with the need to remove powers from the local authorities is something that is quite beyond our comprehension.

It is quite clear that it is beyond your comprehension.

I would say this that the real meaning behind this Bill is far more serious than anything that has been mentioned by anybody in this debate. Basically, it represents a failure of the Government’s policy. Why otherwise the need for the Government to impose its authority upon the local authorities? Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether this Bill does in fact mean that the whole machinery of local government, the process of consultation with the local authorities, has broken down. Because that is very much what it looks like. If the hon. Minister denies that, then why does he need these arbitrary powers? You see, Sir, if the Minister is going seriously to argue that local authorities are not as competent to use new and modern building techniques as he is, then that is so much nonsense. Of course they are. It is an argument that holds no water at all. In fact the local authorities would only be too happy to work in conjunction with the hon. Minister if they approved of his policies in regard to many of these things. Of course the Minister knows that a great many of them do not approve of this policies and that they very much resent continual ministerial interference in these matters. The country is sick of it, local authorities are sick of it. For all the hon. Minister may talk about the approval of the United Municipal Executive, I want to say something about the provincial councils and provincial administrations in this regard as a result of what was said by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) earlier on. This brings me to the whole question of local authorities and the Minister’s attempt in this Bill and in various other Bills to turn them into nothing but rubber-stamps. You see, Sir, the decline in local government in South Africa has taken place during a period of vast economic expansion. We recognize that. This economic expansion has in its turn led to an extension of the functions of the State itself, so much so since this Government came into power that South Africa is horribly over governed to-day. That is one of the causes of the Minister’s difficulties. That is what this Bill is about. The fact is that our rate of expansion in South Africa requires the laying out of countless new townships. We accept that; it is something that all of us accept. But this Bill, as other speakers have said, gives the Minister blanket powers in respect of any land, not only townships. That is our objection, and the wording of the Bill is such that there is no question of real consultation with the local authorities or with the provincial administrations. The hon. Minister knows perfectly well that, as in all other cases, they will be given their orders. The hon. member for Kempton Park sees every justification for that. I am afraid that I do not. I know that there are those who will argue that centralized control makes for greater efficiency. It is a very old argument. It is a moot one and I think it is a very dangerous one indeed. Our view is that a balance has to be struck between, efficiency on the one hand and the democratic process as we know it on the other. It is that with which we are concerned in this Bill, and we very much dislike the powers that the Minister is taking.

The ideal in regard to matters of this kind is that there should be a partnership between the Government, the Provincial Councils and the local authorities, but the powers taken by the hon. Minister in this Bill and in other Bills which will come before us during this Session, will lead to the invidious position, with which we have now become so familiar in the provinces, whereby large sections of existing provincial legislation will be rendered null and void. You have only got to take the Townships Ordinance in the Cape as a start.

When the hon. Minister talks about consulting the Provincial Councils, what is the position going to be the moment this Bill gets on to the Statute Book? Quite a number of hon. members in this House have been members of provincial councils; they know all about it. The position simply is that no ordinance of any province can be repugnant to an Act of Parliament. That is part of our Constitution. The result is that the moment this Bill is on the Statute Book, the provinces will have no option; the provincial councils will not have been consulted, they will have no option except to amend their legislation to fall in line with this Bill exactly as the Minister wants it. There is no real question of consultation with the provinces.

I will concede that a genuine need for coordination exists in this field as in others from time to time. Once would be quite unreasonable not to concede that. I can understand also that, in the national interest, the Government may feel obliged, under certain circumstances, to exert authority and to compel certain institutions, a local authority or even a provincial council, to fulfill certain obligations which, in the public interest, have to be fulfilled. But if that is the sole object of this Bill, if the sole object is to bully the local authorities into what the Minister wants them to do, then, Sir, the Minister must feel a need for that, and if he admits that need, Mr. Speaker, then his admission is an admission of failure to treat with the local authorities by means of the recognized channels that have worked so successfully throughout the years. That in turn is an admission that the Government’s policies are heartily disliked, and secondly, that the Government, this Government, unlike previous governments, has proved itself quite incapable of making the whole system of local government work satisfactorily in South Africa. That is what it proves. Hence the need for the big stick.

Finally, this Bill, to our way of thinking, amounts to nothing more than an admission of failure on the part of the Government to work amicably with the local authorities in South Africa. They have failed to gain the co-operation of local bodies; the Government has failed to inspire the local authorities to carry out their policy. That is what this Bill means, and we oppose most emphatically this very dangerous innovation of increasing an insidious government control, not only when it comes to the question of ownership of land, but also of the use to which land may be put. We deplore the inroads being made into the the rights of private and industrial property-owners in South Africa. We wish our protest to be most emphatically recorded.

In the ordinary course of events, a Bill to deal with community planning or town planning or country planning, or whatever it may be called, would be a day for praise and congratulations, but I would like the hon. Minister to know that I am opposed to this Bill, not only for the reasons advanced by the hon. members who have spoken against it, but because of the experience which I have had in dealing with the results of planning in this country where it affects Coloured persons and Asiatics.

We find ourselves to-day in the position that the Government has had all the powers in the world under the Slums Act, the Housing Act, the Group Areas Development Act, the Group Areas Act, and now the Community Development Act, to carry out all the things which the Minister wishes to do but the Minister in this Bill asks for further powers. I would like the hon. Minister to know that when he said to me the other day that we should tell the Coloured people of the advantages that flow from the planning, that is contemplated, and is being carried out, the Coloured people do not have to be told of the disabilities under which they suffer—they live with those disabilities. These are the people who are moved, who are shunted about, who in every case—and there are dozens and dozens of them—are the sufferers. In his reply to the second-reading debate, the hon. Minister referred to Bosnian’s Dam. He did not deal with the point I made, which was that the Coloured people are being forced out of the urban areas, the municipal areas. As the hon. Minister knows, right throughout the Cape Province, it is always the Coloured community, who are moved—as I said at the time —to the outer perimeter of every town. The hon. Minister conceded that they were moved out to bare veld—as I said, out to the old kliprandt, outside. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. Minister admitted. Therefore any Bill which is designed, not to make the best use of land for the benefit of the community as a whole, but which is designed to be, in my opinion, a disguise, because the Group Areas Act has now been changed in name and has now become “the Community Development Act”, must be opposed. It is obvious that a parallel is now being found, as was found in Britain, but for other reasons. In England the reason for a Ministry of Town and Country Planning was found in the fact that with bomb damage and the encroachment on agricultural land, something had to be done to control the development of cities and towns so that they should be placed in strategic spots and in places where raw materials and labour were available. Now, in this country, if that were the motive at the back of this Bill, I would say that it would be a Bill which we could compliment the Minister. But on observing the working of community development in this country and examining the powers which the Minister wishes to take and intends to take, it is quite obvious that there is going to be an acceleration in the removal of those groups of the community who have been affected by all this legislation. On those grounds I oppose the Bill. I believe that it is wrong in principle to use legislation of this type and kind to deal with that particular aspect of our daily life.

Another point I wish to make—I do not want to labour the question of the provinces and the local authorities—is this: I asked the hon. Minister whether or not the provinces had petitioned him to restrict their powers, or vary their powers, which might have been the reason for this Bill. In his reply he said that he had had consultations with the Administrators and with the members of the Executive Committees at a meeting when this matter was discussed. But the fact remains that the law requires that Parliament should be petitioned to make such alterations. I believe that the community development of towns and townships—that is, the provision of shopping centres and townships away from the congested urban areas, the provision of new houses in the place of old dilapidated slums* was proceeding at a reasonable pace, within the capacity of the country to carry and support both from a material point of view and from the point of artisans and manpower to carry out the work. Now we are having an accelerated effort. The cry to-day is that it is because of immigrants, when in actual fact the large number of houses being built are houses being built for Bantu who are coming to the cities and towns looking for work and finding it, and of Coloured people being moved out of established places in those towns. I put it fairly and squarely to the hon. the Minister: Is it fair, in dealing with community development, that he should say—because that is his attitude—that he and he alone will decide? I know that the actual declaration of group areas now falls under the Minister of Planning, and the onus and responsibility of the declaration now rest on that Minister’s shoulders.

Be that as it may, I believe that the procedure and method that could have been adopted, should have been by way of consultation with local authorities. As the hon. Minister himself admits, he has had the co-operation of local authorities and I can vouch for that. In his reply he quoted one small town council as being difficult, and he asked us by way of question and reply: Should he have to knuckle down to that small local authority? I believe that the method of dealing with that small local authority was through the ordinary channels of the Administrator. It is not a matter that should come to a Minister of State nor for him to deal with some obscure local authority.

I go further and say, that in the Bill, mention is made of compensation for traders who are put out of business, and the Minister did not reply to the question I raised. I ask the House to consider whether it is fair, reasonable and just to take a Coloured trader or an Asiatic trader—and I am going to ask the Minister to introduce an amendment to alter that, in the Other Place if necessary—and to say to that man, who has been in business for years, who has worked honestly, built up a clientele and created goodwill—to say to him arbitrarily: You shall now move, you shall now go to a township which has been set aside for your own people, and you will get one year’s profits as compensation. Is that just, or is it inhuman? It is, at least, unfair. I say that while this type of legislation exists we shall never improve relations in this country vis-à-vis ourselves and the Coloured people who are affected by all this legislation throughout the length and breadth of the Republic. Another point the hon. Minister referred to, was the question I raised with him of making it difficult for local authorities to act. I do not wish to burden the House with a reply to that matter at this stage, but when we get to his Vote, I will quote him chapter and verse as to how difficult it is for local authorities to get action. I do not blame the Minister personally, but as the Minister, he must take the responsibility. It takes months and sometimes years to get results where local authorities are attempting to get on with their job. Time is running short and I do appeal to the hon. Minister to realize that the efforts, the actions of the Government, the actions of the department in dealing with the Coloured community, are creating a tremendous amount of hardship, a great deal of frustration and a great deal of ill-feeling. It is easy for hon. members sitting there to laugh and to jeer, but I say, in all sincerity, that there is nothing that has caused greater hardship in this country; there is nothing that has caused more dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured community, than the legislation which is being pressed upon them, stopping up gaps, and which is designed only to have them removed from the urban areas to a place apart, where they must get on with the job on their own. That is what the legislation is doing, and has done. The hon. Minister has said so often that he has a tremendous amount of sympathy for these people. I ask him to exercise his sympathy and to give instructions that the time has come to turn the heat off from the Coloured people. If there is any heat to be generated or any pressure that has been put upon them; the time has come when these things should be relaxed. The time has come when the Minister must realize that we are dealing with people, with human beings, the same as we are. They are unable to voice their opinions as they should be able to, and they have to rely upon the poor method that is given to them, by having White men like myself to represent them in this House. But, I do my job as best as I can, and I say to the hon. Minister: Stop before it is too late, and stop pushing the Coloured people all around.

Once again we have heard hon. members opposite trying to create the impression in the outside world that the only reason why this legislation is being placed on the Statute Book is to deprive local authorities and provincial councils of all their power. When we study this legislation and we think of the various problems which confront the country we fully appreciate that community development is one of the most important functions of the Government of the day. We are very pleased that the Government is now placing legislation on the Statute Book in order to re-settle the various communities in our country properly and to see to it that those communities develop in an orderly way.

I deprecate the fact that the Opposition tries to create the impression that there is no cooperation between local authorities and the provincial councils and the Government. I think this Government can boast of the fact that it is on the best footing with provincial councils and local authorities, including Johannesburg, as far as co-operation is concerned; and Johannesburg only co-operated after the hon. members for Florida (Mr. Miller) and Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) no longer served on that local authority.

I want to return to the hon. member for Florida. He went to great trouble to give the impression that it was the City Council of Johannesburg who was responsible for building the houses at Meadowlands. The hon. member told the Minister that he wanted to take powers unto himself to build an “empire” but he was too scared to answer my question. The hon. member for Florida said this Minister wanted to build a big empire for himself.

On a point of order, the hon. member is attributing words to me which I did not say.

The hon. member may continue.

He said the then Minister of Native Affairs had placed legislation on the Statute Book and that all the local authorities co-operated with him. That is quite right, he did get the co-operation of local authorities with the exception of the City Council of Johannesburg. That was the only City Council which was so adamant in its refusal to co-operate in re-settling the non-Whites of Johannesburg that the Government had to establish the Re-settlement Board to re-settle the Bantu of Sophiatown in Meadowlands. But to-day he accuses the Minister of wanting to take vast powers unto himself to build an “empire”. We who know what happens on a local authority and in a provincial council want to congratulate the Minister on having come forward with this legislation. Those hon. members opposite say the Minister wants to deprive the city councils and the provincial councils of their power. Our experience has been that when a local authority discusses a matter which emanates from the Government of the day there is always an argument and quarrelling as to whether it is the correct method to adopt. There is also an argument between the officials of the local authority and those of the Government as to the methods to be adopted while the people to whom the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) has referred suffer. Knowing what problems he has to contend with the Minister now introduces this legislation. I can tell hon. members that the various city councils on the Reef do not even have uniform building regulations. Conscious of all the problems that confront him the Minister now submits legislation to this House which will only operate to the advantage and benefit of the various communities and national groups. It is ridiculous to say that South Africa cannot be compared with England because it has not been through a war. I do not for one moment intend comparing the conditions prevailing in the Republic with war conditions but we very definitely say that the slums which still exist in the country to-day can only be cleared up quickly by means of legislation of this nature and it can also help to make the communities happy. We want to say this to the Opposition to-day: Why do they want to sow the suspicion in the world outside that this Government does not want to co-operate with local authorities or provincial councils and that there is quarrelling and dissension between local authorities and the Minister? That is not so. It is precisely this Government which has the full support of the city councils and the provincial councils. Time and again they say to the Minister of Community Development: We are aware of your problems and the big task resting on your shoulders; carry on and we shall co-operate with you as much as we can because we know with your knowledge and experience you are best able to solve these problems to the benefit of the various national groups. I want to make an appeal to the Opposition. Let us stop sowing suspicion. It does not bring us any nearer to solving this problem. The city councils are co-operating with the Minister and we want to say this to the Minister to-day: We pay tribute to him and his Department for the miracles they have performed in such a short space of time. You do the Minister an injustice to say he is building an “empire” because that is something he can definitely not be accused of doing; he does not deserve it but what he does indeed deserve is for us to say that he is honestly imbued with a desire to see to it that justice is done to the various national groups in the country. He honestly wants to see that only the best is done for them.

Perhaps because the lighting in this Chamber is somewhat subdued, I cannot always see very clearly, and so I failed to observe the blush on the countenance of the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he heard that impassioned eulogy of which the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) delivered himself; and he appealed to us to join in the chorus of praise of the Minister. He said to the Opposition that we should say “Thank you” to the Minister, and that he should take all these powers, “want u het die kennis, u het die ondervinding”. You know, Sir, he practically expected us to say The Lord’s Prayer to the hon. the Minister—because what he said sounded like “for Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory”.

Order! The hon. member should discuss the Bill.

That prayer does not sound well in your mouth.

I want to make it clear, in case the point has been missed by the Minister or by the hon. member for Brakpan, that we have not said “Thank you” to the Minister for this Bill, nor do we intend doing so. Surely we have made that painfully clear. Then why does he attack us because we criticize the Minister and the powers he seeks? Are we not entitled to do that? Is this no longer a democratic country?

Because you are being unreasonable.

Is this democracy—that I must be prepared to sit silent while I hear the unreasonable views of the hon. member for Brakpan, and not complain of them? Is that the test of democracy? In other words, as long as I agree with the hon. member and the Minister, I am a democrat, but the moment I dare to disagree, what am I?

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan a few home truths. I want to leave a few minutes over for the hon. member for North-West Rand, who promises to come and hit me afterwards.

Who is the hon. member for Johannesburg (West).

First the hon. member for Brakpan referred to Meadowlands as an example of the dereliction of duty of the Johannesburg City Council, whose battles I do not wish to fight here. But we have heard this flung across the floor of the House, yet every now and then the Minister himself or somebody over there will stand up and say that the Johannesburg City Council is a model of co-operation. The Minister has said it, and he referred to their urban renewal scheme in Fordsburg and in Newclare, in this very debate. The hon. member for Brakpan was here. Why does he seek to deny what Hansard has already recorded? This kind of nonsensical discussion is really a bit too much to expect, even from an hon. member who refuses to look at the facts of the case. Sir, I want to tell him very briefly the facts of Meadowlands. He should know them, because he lives in Brakpan, which is only about 28 miles from Johannesburg, and even in the 1950’s we had radio and newspapers on the Rand! So he must know something of what went on in Johannesburg. He should know that the issue there was the question of the removal of persons from the Western Areas and that the Johannesburg City Council said in effect that unless you would restore the rights these people would lose, the freehold title some of them had, wherever you were going to place them, they would not agree to this scheme. That was the fundamental issue.

You protected the slum-owners and you are doing it now also.

Very well, that is the Minister’s interpretation now. But I want to say this: as unco-operative as that hon. member alleges the City Council of Johannesburg to have been, the moment the Government saw the attitude of the Johannesburg City Council, motivated by the attitude of its ratepayers, the people of the City of Johannesburg who put them there—a little exercise in democracy that you should remember sometimes—when the Government found that the City Council had taken a certain attitude, it passed legislation; the Western Areas removal scheme came into being, and as a result, Meadowlands was built. But how was Meadowlands built? Why does the hon. member for Brakpan not tell us the truth and the whole truth, even if he refuses to tell us nothing but the truth? Why does he not tell this House that the moment that became an accomplished fact, that the legislation was passed, and that the removal scheme had to be undertaken, the City Council of Johannesburg cooperated fully in the development of Meadowlands? [Interjections.]

Order!

The very fact that all those services were provided for that enormous Bantu township which to-day is the apple of the eye of this Government … [Interjections.] The fact that all those services were provided with the least delay, and partly at the expense of the ratepayers of Johannesburg, is due to the fact that the Johannesburg City Council provided all those services, the roads, the water, the electricity and the sewerage. It is very sad that one has to go over all these facts again and again, when they are already recorded for posterity, which I say will one day weep because of the fact that there was once a Nationalist Government. I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan something— he says that to-day the Johannesburg City Council does co-operate.

Yes, since you left the Council.

That only proves the truth of the old adage that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. In that case, since this tremendous improvement has taken place in the relations between the Government and the Johannesburg City Council, the hon. member for Florida and I should be made welcome here and the hon. member for Brakpan should thank us for coming here, because now there is co-operation. Imagine the City of London not co-operating with the U.K. Government!

The hon. member says that we have sought to create the impression that the only purpose of this Bill is the deprivation of the powers of the local authorities or the Provincial Councils. It is not merely an impression—I say he is absolutely right; that is the only purpose, because all these things which the Minister sets out to do in this Bill have been done and are being done and will continue to be done without any of these powers, if there is this co-operation which the hon. member says there is. It either exists or it does not. Sir, this must be simpler than the theory of relativity, but they make it so difficult for us to know whether they think there is co-operation between the local authorities and the Government or not. If there is co-operation, why this Bill? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Brakpan says I am stupid. We have a saying in the Transvaal, “Dorn is niks, maar, stupid’!” Sir, you heard the hon. member say that the Government can boast that it has the finest co-operation from the Provincial Administrations and the local authorities, but a minute ago he said that there was no co-operation, and so we have had this game of battledore and shuttlecock, so that anybody who does not have his feet firmly on the ground would get so dizzy that he would not know what the meaning was of statements made on that side of the House, and the same applies to the Minister. They do not use words as if they have an ordinary dictionary meaning, or an ordinary usage. I was very interested to see a few days ago that in a cartoon by Dawid Marais in the Cape Times the hon. the Minister was depicted as a ballerina—I must say a very stocky and overweight ballerina—being held by his colleague the Minister of Planning. I think that to show the Minister in the guise of a ballerina …

Were you the elf?

You are so simple that they could not even put you into the cartoon.

I was not even in the picture. The Minister was shown as a ballerina, but that is wrong. The Minister is better cast in the role of the Queen in “Alice through the Looking Glass”, where the Queen says: “Words mean what I say they mean. I am the master.” That is exactly the attitude of the Minister. Words mean what the Minister says they mean. A Bill is introduced and it is called the Community Development Bill-—and you can search through every line of the Bill but you will find no definition of “community development”. So what does it mean? The hon. member for Brakpan says it means what he says it means, and the Minister says the same. Then you come to the long title of the Bill and there is a reference to “the promotion of community development”. Now the long title is presumed to give the object of the Bill, and here the object is stated as being “the promotion of community development”. Then you are entitled to ask: The promotion of what? What is community development? Nobody knows. They say community development is what they say it is. In other words, like the Queen in “Alice through the Looking Glass”, the Minister says: Words mean what I say they mean. For all the difference it makes, this could just as well have been called the “Communistic Development Bill” or the “Socialist Development Bill”, because this is a socialist measure. This Bill contains a radical departure which is very surprising in a country like South Africa which prides itself on its capitalist and private-enterprise economy, in that the Government can now step in, in any part of South Africa, and whether or not it is the legal owner of the land, it can do what it likes with the land. I may be quite wrong, but if I were to look for definitions of a communistic kind of development, this is it. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Cradock proves nothing else, he always demonstrates without any doubt that in the National Party caucus, the common denominator is the ignoramus.

I want to deal briefly with a few points made by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). He said that members on the Government side welcomed this Bill because the community development concept is wider than that of the group areas concept. Now, we know what “group areas” means. We have had a principal Act and a succession of amending Acts, and in all those Acts the question is removed from debate because there is a definition of an “area” and a definition of a “group”, and there is a definition of a “group area”. The present Bill is the Bill which puts the finishing touch to the principal Act and all the amending Acts—but lo and behold, it is called by another name, the Community Development Bill, gainsaying all is predecessors; and we can do what we like, but nobody can give us a legal definition of “community development”, from the Minister downwards. So whatever the Minister or the hon. member for Kempton Park says about it, we see this Bill as a measure which gives the Minister certain Dowers without any rhyme or reason or justification, and we know that whatever we may say, when the voting takes place we will have lost the argument. But we are entitled to point out to the House and to the country and to the Minister that this is not good legislation. The hon. member for Kempton Park says, on a constitutional issue, that we are wrong in saying that there is a deprivation of rights as far as the Provincial Councils and the local authorities are concerned, and I wish that you had been here, Sir, because this is constitutional law at the highest level—in fact, so high that I have difficulty in getting up into that stratosphere. He says that in a unitary state like South Africa there is no such thing as an “assailable” Government action in regard to its powers. There is no such thing as the right to assail the Central Government on its action in taking away certain powers of local authorities. He says there can be no derogation of the power of the Central Government to deprive the Provincial Councils of their power. We who have read the constitution of South Africa can only gaze open-mouthed at the hon. member for Kempton Park, who is a lawyer by profession, when he makes this kind of statement; because if this is what he says is written in the constitution, then, again, words mean what the Government says they mean. The country, the people of South Africa and that side of the House, the Government, have always known that there are certain provisions in the Act of Union, which were taken over when South Africa became a Republic, and we have always believed that those words mean exactly what they mean in plain language—whether it is Afrikaans or English. But here we are told to-day that in a unitary state like South Africa, there is no situation in which a Government can be attacked in regard to any action it may take for the purpose of removing the powers of the Provincial Councils or the local authorities. I do not know whether this will bring up any other questions in future, but I fear that what we heard this afternoon, if we are to take it seriously, discloses something which is far beyond the framework of this Bill (which we call “community development” because we have no other name for it)—that there is an intention on the Government side to ignore any constitutional provision as long as a certain end must be served. I think we, as an Opposition, should warn the Government against this kind of action, and should alert the people of South Africa. If it is the intention to deny what the constitution says in simple language, then we should all be aware of it. I do not want to take it any further than that; I hope to do so at a more appropriate time.

Dealing with this Bill, the Minister told us quite early in the debate that we did not know what was going on in regard to the development of certain areas under the control of the Community Development Department to which the Bill now seeks to give certain powers, and he said that it was our own fault that we did not know. He said he had even invited the Opposition to go on a tour of new schemes, but the invitation had not been accepted. Now, I want to make it very clear that I have yet to find someone on this side of the House who received that invitation. I may live in the backveld, but I for one did not receive any such invitation, though I would have been delighted, because of my basic interest in the matter, to accept it.

But you will never be included in such an invitation.

Ah, precisely. Like his colleague the Minister of Justice, in another context, I am also fussy about the company I keep. No matter what the Minister says about me, it stands on record in Hansard and in the Press that he has invited the Opposition— unless the Minister now says that he takes unto himself one of the powers granted under this Bill, the right to excise one member of the Opposition—myself! I say he never invited anybody. [Interjections.] Ah, so it was a privilege. This, then, is democracy! Then he said that we, the Opposition, were creating a serious danger for South Africa. He said that if we kept on harping on the provision of housing and certain amenities, we would simply add fuel to the flames of the argument that too much was already being done for the non-Whites, and he said that if all the good work the Government was doing to house the non-Whites properly was continuously going to be derided by the Opposition, the White population might eventually resist the undertaking of further new schemes—and the day that happened, the United Party should bear the full responsibility! Sir, this is an amazing statement from a Minister of State. He says to the Opposition that we must not criticize him or the Government because if we do, we will simply draw attention to the fact that the Government is trying to do too much in regard to the housing of non-Whites.

And if we do that, the White people of South Africa will suddenly wake up to the fact that we are spending so much money on the non-Whites that they will say, “You must stop this completely”; so he says to us, in effect, “keep very quiet about this; if you want the Coloureds to be housed, if you want the Bantu and the Indians to be housed—let alone the White people—keep very quiet; do not criticize, because you are only drawing attention to the deeds of the Government”. Sir, I cannot understand how, in all seriousness, the hon. the Minister can expect us to swallow that kind of argument. For so long as this Government even pretends that South Africa is a democratic country and that this is a democratic Parliament, the forum of the people, for so long two must play that game, and the game means that he Government (which they tell us ad nauseam every day is democratic), as well as the Opposition does its best to see that it governs South Africa well (which this Government fails to do at all material times). This is the game; and if they want to put a stop to that, then they are going the right way about it, because now a person who criticizes, let alone an hon. member of this House, automatically becomes the enemy of the State, according to the views expressed here to-day. Sir, I do not have to go very far back to prove how dangerous that attitude is to democracy As I was saying, this is a sad day indeed, for reasons with which I need not burden you, Sir. I merely want to indicate to the hon. Minister that regardless of all the powers which are conferred on him and his Department and his officials in this Bill—and this may be considered no more than a prophecy to-day—regardless of all his powers, he will fail miserably in the provision of housing if he does not have the co-operation of the local authorities, of the public at large, and even of the Provincial Administrations. He will not succeed, because it is no use assuming that you can govern a country by pushing buttons, by saying, “There is a Bill; now you go out and do what the Bill provides”. There are people involved here, human beings who like to feel that, even if they are not loved, they are considered—human beings who, in our country, as in other countries, believe that when they elect a local authority or a Provincial Administration, it has those powers which the constitution of the Republic of South Africa arm it with. Sir, I am sorry to end the sentence with a preposition, but that is the only thing that is wrong with that statement! The moment people become disillusioned about this, Sir, you will not get any co-operation from them.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68 (1).

I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much of the time of the House, and it is not my intention to do so for the simple reason that practically nothing new has been said in this third-reading debate. The only thing we had that was new was a series of ridiculous statements by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), to which I do not propose to reply.

Say “thank you”.

A few points have been made here to which I do want to reply, one of them by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor). The hon. member says that we are violating provincial ordinances and breaking down the powers of Provincial Councils, but that is not correct. I am sorry that the hon. member is not here. What we are doing here does not violate any Ordinance or local bylaw, except in those cases where the State uses its own funds, where we give the State the right to act without being bound by antiquated methods and regulations. That is all we are doing here. There is no such thing that we are violating or ignoring ordinances. We are only giving the power to the State, where State funds are used and where the State provides the means, to act without being bound by antiquated methods and regulations. But, Sir, it serves no purpose to try to explain that to hon. members of the Opposition; they refuse to believe it. May I remind you, Sir, that only yesterday the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), when we were discussing another measure, adopted precisely the opposite attitude and said that he wanted me to take even more drastic powers so as to be able to do away with these antiquated by-laws. In other words, within the space of two days the official Opposition, in dealing with the same principle, adopts precisely the opposite attitude.

True to their nature.

Why do they do so, Mr. Speaker? As far as the Housing Act is concerned they adopt a different attitude. Last year when I gave certain powers to the local authorities under the Housing Act to get away from old by-laws, the Opposition raised no objection to it; they said that they agreed with it, but to-day they object because in this case the Development Board is being vested with precisely the same powers. Why? They object because this Board has to deal with separate residential areas. Sir, I say to you that whatever the protestations of the Opposition may be, whatever they may try to make the country believe, in their heart of hearts they are against separate residential areas. The Opposition do not want separate residential areas in South Africa; what they want is a hotch-potch urban community. They are not prepared to take the steps which are taken by this Government to ensure separate residential areas for Whites and for non-Whites. Their whole history testifies to that fact, and the attitude which they have adopted here to-day, in conflict with the attitude which they adopted when the Housing Act was under discussion, only reveals once again that in their heart of hearts they are not in favour of residential separation in South Africa. Sir, we will continue to make that charge against them; they cannot get away from it.

You ought to know that that is untrue.

Why then do hon. members opposite oppose every single measure that we introduce to bring about residential separation? Why do they continually attack the principle of group areas; why do they continually attack us when we try to clear up areas and to bring about residential separation in areas which were formerly mixed residential areas? Sir, they do not want separate residential areas and my charge against them is that they are trying to create a false image of themselves in this connection. That is also my reply to the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden). The hon. member talked here about injustices suffered by the Coloureds. Sir, no Government in the history of South Africa has done as much as this Government to settle Coloured communities under decent living conditions. The hon. member knows that that is the position but he talks this way because he refuses to admit it; he talks this way because there is a Prog, ghost on his heels. He has just returned from the Kimberley constituency where the Coloured voters once again rejected their candidate to-day; the outcome has just been announced. Do you know, Sir, why the Coloureds are rejecting them? Not so much because the Coloureds are Progressives, but more particularly because they have nothing but contempt for the methods employed by the party over there.

Are things also going badly with your party then?

We put up no candidates, and we have never said that we adopt the attitude that the Coloureds should vote for us— never.

What about Mr. Scholz?

Mr. Scholz was not a National Party candidate.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that, but then hon. members opposite must not tempt me.

The hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be tempted.

That is very difficult, Sir; it is a human weakness to fall for temptation! I say that the hon. member for Karoo ought to know better; he ought to know about the measures which were taken in Kimberley itself. In the very heart of Kimberley there was an area which was the worst possible breeding-ground for slums, and it is because of steps taken by this Government, because of money made available by this Government, because of directives issued by this Government, that the Malay camp in Kimberley has been cleared up. It is because of the implementation of the Group Areas Act that the Malay camp in Kimberley has been cleared up.

And they opposed it.

May I ask a question?

No, let the hon. member take his medicine now. The fact of the matter is that this Malay camp in the very heart of Kimberley has been cleared up as a result of the declaration of group areas, and the fact of the matter is that the people who were resettled …

That is untrue.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say to the Minister that he is not speaking the truth?

Let him say it; I do not mind; his own constituency is beginning to scoff at him. The fact of the matter is that these people who were taken out of the Malay camp and resettled, were resettled at the expense of the State. The housing which was provided for these people in Kimberley and which is still being provided to clear up hovels and slum conditions there, was and is being provided at the expense of the State. The hon. member can say whatever he likes but his own City Council is laughing at him; his own constituency is laughing at him and this House is laughing at him.

Hon. members of the Opposition want to know why I am taking these powers if in fact I receive such wonderful co-operation from the city councils. Sir, I thought I had dealt with that already, but the trouble is that those hon. members never listen. For the sake of the record, therefore, let me once again read out this letter which was received in my office on 5 August 1964—

You will recall from previous discussions that the local authority had no power to refuse to pass a building plan where such plan complies with the by-laws and you will be well aware how this lack of power can frustrate the implementation of sound planning in redevelopment and renewals schemes. Besides the western development for Coloured ownership and occupation the Council is to your knowledge on the threshhold of redevelopment and renewals schemes for Whites also. The purpose of this letter therefore is to solicit your assistance in pressing this matter from the State level to the fullest extent of your convictions in this regard.

This letter was signed by the Town Clerk of Johannesburg. In other words, even though we have the co-operation of city councils, they admit that there are by-laws and regulations which hamper modern development, and all we are doing here is to ask for the power to get away from antiquated by-laws. That is also my reply to the accusation made here with regard to the freezing of buildings; it is also my reply to the accusation made here with regard to urban renewal schemes, because that matter is also dealt with in this letter; this is also my reply to the charge that I am not seeking the co-operation of the local authorities. I have said here on a previous occasion—and I do not want to enlarge upon it again—that as far as this point is concerned I have the co-operation of the United Municipal Executive. Not only do they welcome this measure but they admit that the Central Government must have the authority to intervene to help them out of this difficulty. But, Sir, do you think it helps to say that to hon. members on the other side? They simply refuse to believe it. They are against separate residential areas and they are against slum clearance. I do not want to deal at length with the observations made by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), but I just want to say this to him: He tried to create the impression that he was really the father of the scheme to clear up the undesirable conditions under which the Bantu on the Witwatersrand lived. But I want to ask him to bear in mind that there are other people who also have ears and eyes. We recall how the hon. the Prime Minister was called a dictator in this House; we recalled how he was called names because he was allegedly taking unto himself all sorts of powers so as to be able to control human lives; we still recall the fight that took place here with regard to the site and service scheme; we recall the fight that took place here over the establishment of the Resettlement Board and over the levy fund; we recall the fight that took place here because of the steps taken by the hon. the Prime Minister to clear up Sophiatown. At that time the hon. the Prime Minister had to endure the same abusive language that we have had to endure during the past few days. To-day, however, they come along and claim the credit for these things for themselves. They are welcome to it, but we say to them that they must not try to stand in the way of further progress. That is my reply to them. As far as the hon. member’s insults are concerned, I fling them back in his teeth. He is the last person from whom I am prepared to endure insults.

Who insulted you?

I will not do you the honour of insulting you.

The hon. member could never rise high enough even to get in touch with me. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member was extremely unpleasant here this afternoon; if I wished to become unpleasant too I could say quite a few things, but I regard the hon. member and his methods as beneath me.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) The hon. member made two points which are worthwhile replying to. He referred to the freezing of buildings and he wanted to know whether this would only take place in designated areas. My reply is, “Yes,” it will only be in designated areas.

The second point which the hon. member raised was in connection with compensation which is paid for buildings which are involved in these designated areas, not in group areas. The hon. member was concerned more specifically with buildings which are involved in other areas. If the hon. member looks at Clause 5 (2) (e) he will see that the Group Areas Board (now the Community Development Board) has no power to take that building away from the owner; the Board only has a preferent right to purchase; it does not deprive that person of the building, and the compensation which is paid in terms of Clause 5 (5) (a) is the compensation which is laid down in the Slums Act. The Slums Act, as the hon. member knows, was passed in 1934. In other words, if this is unfair, it was the then Government which passed this unfair measure. I think that explains the point in regard to which the hon. member wished to have clarity.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say so but except for these points, not a single new point has been raised here, and because I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, I move.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It is not my intention, as far as this debate is concerned, to give a lengthy reply because hon. members on both sides of the House have indicated that they support this Bill, although I received rather strange support from the official Opposition. They said that they were in favour of this Bill and they then proceeded to explain in what respects they disagreed with it. That is something, however, that we can deal with in the Committee Stage. I leave it at that.

When the House adjourned yesterday evening, I was replying to certain points made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I made the point that we granted certain powers to local authorities last year to enable them to get away from antiquated methods. We were under the impression last year that the powers of the National Housing Commission were adequate until we came up against the problem that there was talk throughout the country of “town-planning schemes in the course of preparation”. This is a practically never-ending process, and because that is the position, the Act was not framed widely enough to enable us to cope with that problem. The hon. member then asked me by way of interjection whether we were ensuring that we would get the co-operation of the local authorities. The reply is “Yes”, we are going out of our way to obtain their co-operation. That was why the Department took what was an unprecedented step in the history of South Africa and that was to draw up a housing code which was made available to the local authorities. In this housing code, of which we gave quite a few copies to the Opposition—and I hope that the hon. member will try to peruse it because he has not yet seen it—we try to give guidance to the local authorities in respect of every facet of housing. But in addition to that we also made available to the local authorities the Louw Committee’s report which deals with new building methods and new building materials. Not only does this report throw new light on the use of new materials and new building methods, but since we have no standard regulations as yet, it goes further and specifies which specifications of the S.A. Bureau of Standards we can use in applying these building methods. Thirdly, in consultation with the Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. we are continually having research undertaken, research to which the Department of Community Development largely contributes in the case of special projects. We then make available to the local authorities the information thus gathered. The reply to the hon. member’s question therefore is in the affirmative.

The hon. member correctly points out that there is a great hiatus in South Africa as far as this matter is concerned. In spite of the fact that we are now taking these powers under the Housing Act and that we are also giving these powers to local authorities, the fact of the matter is that these powers only apply in those cases where State funds are used. In other words, private concerns which establish townships and local authorities which do not make use of State funds are still bound by these antiquated methods and regulations. I have two documents here which reached my office only this morning; the one comes from a well-known holiday resort here in the Cape, where the title deed conditions prevent the utilization of any of these new building methods. This is one of the best-known holiday resorts in the Cape Province, and these people are simply debarred from making use of these new methods. I received a letter only this morning from a well-known local authority in Natal. A large firm there, on its own initiative, wants to start with the erection of houses provided they can get the land. The local authority informed this firm that they were sorry but their by-laws prohibited the proposed building methods and that they themselves were against it. In other words, they want to adhere to the old methods. We are now asking for these powers so that the State will not be hampered in its efforts, in those cases where the State provides the funds either by way of a loan or by way of direct expenditure. I think in asking this question the hon. member really wants to know what steps we are taking to have these new methods applied generally. I do not think this falls within the scope of my Department, but there are discussions going on between the Minister of Economic Affairs and myself. There is an interdepartmental committee, under the chairmanship of a representative of the South African Bureau of Standards, which has almost completed the task of drawing up a number of standard regulations which we will be able to promulgate within the foreseeable future and which will be acceptable to the Provinces and the local authorities. This will cover a wider field than the field we are trying to cover where State funds only are used. Sir, I think I have replied adequately now to the points raised here by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) made a few statements here with which I do not quite agree. He referred to the “terrific backlog in housing” and “the housing crisis” amongst other things. He says, “The present crisis has been created by the incompetence of this Government.” I do not think the hon. member believes that himself. This is not the occasion, Sir, to give the hon. member figures to show what this Government has spent over a period of 16 years in respect of each racial group in South Africa. After all, those figures are well known; they are available, and I think the hon. member did himself a very great injustice.

I did not accuse you of not having done anything.

This Government has done more than any of its predecessors. As a matter of fact this Government has done more during this period of 16 years as far as housing is concerned than was done during the period 1920 to 1948, a period of 28 years.

There was a war on.

I am not talking about a war now; I am replying to the hon. member’s accusation that this Government is “incompetent”. Sir, how can an incompetent government achieve in 16 years what we have achieved in respect of housing? When one compares our achievements with the achievements of the Netherlands and Germany, where there has been large-scale building, I say that this Government has achieved a very great deal. That fact is admitted by foreign experts. Moreover, our sub-economic housing in South Africa is often of a higher standard than economic housing in other countries.

The hon. member talks about a terrible crisis. Sir, there is no housing crisis. I quoted here last year from an article written by Edmund Ward in the Financial Times in which he reviewed housing conditions throughout the world. Let me quote it again—

He then goes on to describe what happened. Amongst other things he says in this article that the great problem was that conventional building methods could not keep pace with urban growth and development; that the necessary housing could not be provided by adopting the conventional building methods. That is the position throughout the world, and that is why Europe has switched over from the conventional methods to new methods. They have done so on a large scale. Sir, has this Government been as incompetent as the hon. member suggested here? Immediately after this Government learned that new building methods were being applied in Europe, it took steps, through the Minister concerned and through experts in the relevant departments, to become au fait with these new building methods. Moreover, we took steps immediately and we timeously warned the local authorities; we said to them, “Don’t sit back with folded arms; with the influx of immigrants and the growth which is going to take place in the economic sphere, there is going to be a shortage of housing, particularly as far as certain income groups are concerned; see that you are prepared to meet the situation”. In order to be able to take the lead itself, the State asked Parliament for certain legislative powers last year and also in previous years. In the second place the State equipped itself so as to be able to give a lead in the field of new building methods. In the first place the State accelerated its housing programmes by not leaving it to local authorities only to provide housing; the State did quite a few extra things. Amongst other things, we bought land in large urban complexes. We bought individual sites where services were available. We started immediately to make housing available. We went further and launched new town-construction schemes such as Triomf in Johannesburg and Bosmansdam, amongst others, on land acquired and owned by us. I am now referring to Whites only. In other words, the State has not been asleep.

It has only been happening over the past three years since you took over.

What did we do until three years ago? Until three years ago we went ahead full-steam to provide housing. I just want to refer the hon. member to our Estimates. Let him look at the amounts that we have voted in this Parliament every year over the past 16 years in respect of housing. Do not let him be unreasonable in his criticism.

I come to Durban now, and I hope the hon. member will listen. The hon. member worked out a little sum here as far as Durban is concerned. He says that according to his calcuations there is a shortage of 60,000 houses in Durban; that is the figure for all races. What is the position more or less? My figures may be out by some hundreds. The position is as follows in Durban: In the case of Indians, the population is more or less 240,000. Taking the average family at six persons, it means that there are 40,000 families, of whom there are approximately 25,000 in Durban, which means that there are approximately 4,000 families. Those members of the Indian population who have to be given new housing are living under the worst conceivable slum conditions, as the hon. member will probably concede. At most 20,000 houses are needed, of which a large number is already in the process of construction, in order to cope with the problem there. Approximately 2,000 houses are required for the Coloureds. At the present moment we are developing a scheme involving 1,500 houses in Wentworth. As far as Whites are concerned, we estimate that there is a shortage of approximately 3,000 houses, making a total of 25,000, which is less than half of the 60,000 which the hon. member says are needed.

What about the Bantu?

The Bantu are dealt with under the Bantu Housing Board. The hon. member knows that as far as Bantu housing is concerned, more has been done in Durban than in most other centres in this country. Does he deny that? Where does the incompetence of the Government come in? The hon. member estimates that there is a shortage of 60,000 houses and he wants to know from me whether we are in a position to provide these houses; whether, in our incompetence, we will be able to wipe out this backlog. My reply is this: The money is available and guidance is available from the Department, but the question is whether the building industry can cope with the situation. That is the question. That is why this Government stated timeously that if the conventional building industry could not meet these demands, then other methods would have to be devised. Sir, are we getting the assistance of hon. members on the other side in this connection? We have just passed the third reading of a Bill which is designed to make those things possible, and what was the attitude of hon. members opposite? [Interjections.] Of course it has everything to do with it. Mr. Speaker, it is useless arguing with hon. members on the other side. Here I have the figures showing what was spent in Durban only from 1962 to 1964. As far as economic housing is concerned, loans amounting to R 14,609,000 were given to the Durban City Council. As far as sub-economic housing is concerned, the amount is R5,668,000, making a total of R20,277,000. Apart from these loans granted by the National Housing Commission, it is busy in Durban with its own schemes which will cost R419,000. The Development Board— and hon. members voted a little while ago against a Bill in which provision is made for these powers to be given to the Development Board—is at present erecting buildings to the value of R712,000 in Durban. Sir, do you see the hollowness of the complaints made here by hon. members opposite?

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) wanted to know yesterday whether we were able to spend this money. But in the same breath he wanted to know whether in addition to this money we were also going to get the money which formerly went to the Public Debt Commissioners and which will now go into the fund of the National Housing Commission. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. We do not have millions of rand available from that fund immediately. These schemes are at present in the process of amortization and this amount will only grow over a period of years, because most of these schemes have not yet been in operation sufficiently long to make it possible for us to draw this money in large amounts at this stage already. Surely the hon. member ought to know that. After all, he told us this afternoon what an expert he was in this field. He ought to know that this money does not come back to us in large amounts. In other words, at the present moment we still have to ask the State and Parliament for this money. We want this money so as to be able to strengthen the National Housing Fund over a period of years. That is why we want it, and another reason why we want it is to use it for improvements and for concomitant development.

Another point that has been raised here and to which I have to reply is that we are lowering standards by means of the powers that we are taking here and that we are subdividing sites, although it is perfectly clear what we have in mind here and that is that we want to be able, because of the scarcity of land in South Africa, to subdivide excessively large sites. The National Housing Commission has its own standards and plot sizes which have been worked out by experts. We are not going to subdivide land injudiciously, it is alleged that in taking these powers we are going to lower standards! I do not know whether hon. members have seen this periodical, but here I have a periodical published by an independent body, without interference from my Department. I refer to the South African Brick Association. In their recent issue they write as follows, and I want to read it out so that it can go on record. The whole of this issue is illustrated with photographs which show what is being done by the Department of Community Development, and this is being done not by employing new building methods but by employing ordinary, orthodox methods. This is what they say—

A visit through the streets of Triomf conjures up an immediate impression that the houses are of the same standard and design as those which are to be found in some of Johannesburg’s middle-income group areas. Generally the only difference is that the homes in Triomf are roughly half the size and at least a third of the price of their counterparts in the city’s more affluent areas. Another immediate impact that is made on the minds of newcomers is the thought that the Triomf plan has inculcated a spirit of home-ownership responsibility in people who, until two years ago, had absolutely no chance of owning their own homes in a new suburb.

Here we have a testimonial from an outside body which judges this thing on its merits. That is my reply to the charge that we will possibly lower the standards.

I want to conclude by saying that I am convinced that once this amended legislation has been passed and once the other legislation in connection with the Development Board has been passed, when these two bodies will be able to operate on the new basis under the Department of Community Development, we will have an instrument in South Africa which will compare very favourably indeed with the best that is available in Europe for urban development and urban renewal. Hon. members opposite are at liberty to try to belittle these measures but time will tell whether we in South Africa took timeous steps to enable us to cope with our future urban problems. Moreover, these steps will result in the establishment of a new industry in South Africa, namely a pre-fabricated housing industry. This industry is already showing the first signs of development; it is already getting tenders from us. This industry is going to enable South Africa to become one of the countries which will be able to help her young cities to overcome the social problems, with which the old cities of Europe have to struggle at the present time and where it is almost too late to overcome them. Sir, this Government is not incompetent. This Government has not failed in its task; this Government, in spite of petty opposition, is looking to the future and is building the bulwarks behind which our urban population will be able to lead a sound family life and a sound community life.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

A convention, which is aimed at providing uniform rules for deciding the contradictory legal principles existing in the various countries of the world in respect of the formal requirements in the execution of wills, was prepared during the ninth session of the International Legal Conference in The Hague during 1960. The Republic was approached with a view to joining this convention. Joining the convention implies that legal provision (in so far as it does not already exist) must be made to ensure that wills, in so far as formal requirements are concerned, will be accepted as valid in every country subscribing to the convention if they are executed according to certain formal requirements. The requirements in question are mainly the same as those which already apply on the international level between all civilized countries. In view of modern international relations between people and the desirability that as far as practicable effect should be given to the wishes of a testator, and the fact that the objects underlying this convention already to a large extent form part of our common law, the Government intends joining this convention in due course. It is necessary, however, for reasons of efficiency, that the relevant rules should now be embodied in our statute law, where they do not yet appear. For the information of hon. members it may be mentioned that any state may join the convention. The convention remains in force for five years and may be tacitly renewed for periods of five years, and membership may cease on the giving of at least six months’ notice.

Great Britain has already joined the convention and passed the necessary legislation in 1963. The Bill now before the House contains the provisions which are necessary to give effect to the objects of the convention and agree in principle with the British Wills Act, 1963.

I refer briefly to the various clauses of the Bill. The amendment contained in Clause 1 is necessitated by the provisions of Clause 2.

In regard to Clause 2, paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) provide that a will is not invalid merely because of its form, provided that the formalities observed in executing it comply with the law of the State or territory—

1. (i) in which the will was executed;
2. (ii) in which the testator at the time of the execution of the will or at the time of his death was domiciled or was habitually resident;
3. (iii) of which the testator was a citizen at the time of his death; or
4. (iv) in which the immovable property which was disposed of in the will was situated.

It sometimes happens that the fiduciary is granted the power by testamentary disposition to indicate the testator’s heir or heirs from amongst certain nominees. If in such a case the fiduciary nominates the testator’s heir in a will which the former executed in a foreign state or territory, such will, in terms of Clause 2 (1) (c) is not invalid simply because it has been executed in terms of the formalities prescribed by the law of that state or territory.

There seems to be no good reason why the law which applied to the execution of a will in so far as the form of the will was concerned should not also apply when such will or part of it is revoked. Clause 2 (1) (d) contains the necessary provision in this regard.

In terms of international private law, vessels or aircraft are regarded as forming part of the area of jurisdiction of the State or territory where they are registered. It is of course possible that a will may be executed on board a vessel or aircraft. I can see many good reasons why people who are on such a vessel may think of making a will. Therefore provision is made in Clause 2 (1) (e) that the law in regard to the execution of wills of the state or territory in which such vessel or aircraft was registered at the time of such execution, or with which it was otherwise most closely connected at that time, will apply in respect of a will executed on board such vessel or aircraft.

In some countries the competence to execute a will on the basis of the testator’s age is regarded as a requirement relating to form only, whereas in other countries it is regarded as a qualification to execute a will. It is essential that uncertainty in this regard should be eliminated. In this regard Clause 2 (2) gives the necessary certainty. Clause 2 (3) merely contains an enabling provision which is aimed at ensuring legal certainty in regard to the legal provisions in connection with formal requirements in the execution of wills in those countries where more than one legal system exists in regard to this matter.

The convention also provides for the reservation of certain rights. For example, wills executed by South African citizens in the Republic must, according to our law, be executed in writing. For obvious reasons it is essential that wills executed by South Africans outside the Republic should also be executed in writing. For the rest, the provisions of Clause 2 (4), which are self-explanatory, are aimed at achieving efficiency. The provisions of Clause 2 do not effect the interpretation of the content of wills. They are only concerned with formal requirements.

This proposed Act will, in terms of Clause 3, not be able to come into operation immediately because the Republic must first join the convention.

These are the provisions and principles of the Bill and I move.

We on this side welcome the fact that South Africa is to adhere to the International Convention in this matter, and we also approve of the legislation which is before us, which we regard as necessary, and we hope naturally that this legislation will be adopted by many countries and will come into force in most countries of the world. But obviously, as the Minister has said, in these modern times when there is a great deal of travel between the various countries of the world, when you find the citizens of one country spread throughout the countries of the world, there should be provision of the sort that is contained in this Bill, not only in the interest of citizens of other countries who happen to come to or to be in South Africa at the time, but in due course in the interest of South African citizens who may have complied with the South African law which might not be adequate to provide for their wills to be valid in foreign countries, and reciprocal legislation in that respect would be for the benefit of the citizens of this country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is the first time that a complete Bill dealing with arbitration is being introduced in our Parliament. The legal provisions in regard to arbitration in the Cape Province, Natal and Transvaal are contained in a number of Acts, some of which date from the year 1898. In the Free State, on the other hand, there is no general Act at all dealing with arbitration and the matter is regulated by Acts which mainly regulate other matters, such as, e.g. the expropriation of property. In South West Africa arbitration is regulated by Proclamation No. 3 of 1926.

The Law Revision Committee, which is under the chairmanship of the hon. the Chief Justice, has recently reviewed the legal provisions by which arbitration is regulated in the Republic and also in certain other countries, and it now suggests that the Republic’s legislation regulating arbitration in general should be combined and adapted to present-day conditions. The Bill before us was prepared by that Committee.

I shall deal briefly with the clauses. Clause 1 merely contains the definitions required for the purposes of this Bill.

As in the case of the existing Acts, a matrimonial matter or a case connected with such a matter or a case with reference to status cannot be referred to arbitration. The reason for this is so obvious that comment is not necessary in regard to Clause 2. Where changes of status are concerned, that can only be done by the Supreme Court and not by way of agreement between the parties or arbitration.

Clause 3 provides that the arbitration agreement shall not be capable of being terminated except with the consent of all the parties thereto, unless the agreement provides otherwise, and grants the court the power to intervene in suitable cases. That is done to prevent any hardship which may arise from the agreement.

I come to Clause 4. The provision that an arbitration agreement is not terminated by the death of a party is not new. The suspension of all steps and proceedings in connection with a reference is, however, also being extended where a party vacates his post or is dismissed from it. For the rest, certain provisions which apply in respect of such a suspension are set out in the clause. The provisions of the clause do not affect the application of any legal provision in terms of which a right of action is extinguished by the death of any person.

In regard to Clause 5 I just want to say that the existing legal provisions are. not clear in regard to the effect which the insolvency of a party or the liquidation of a company which is a party has on an arbitration agreement. It is now being expressly provided that the agreement or the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire in terms of it will not be terminated by insolvency or liquidation unless the agreement so provides. Hon. members will see right throughout the Bill that where certain formal requirements are provided for, the parties still need not be bound by the provisions contained in the Act, but may make their own rules within the general framework of this Act. The legal provisions concerning the sequestration of insolvent estates and the liquidation of corporate bodies are now also expressly declared to be applicable as if the reference of a dispute to arbitration is an action or proceeding within the meaning of such legal provision, and referring a dispute to arbitration is considered to be an action or proceeding when that legal provision is applied. Any periods of time fixed by or under this Act are extended by any stay, suspension or cessation of arbitration proceedings resulting from insolvency or liquidation.

Clause 6. Legal proceedings in any court may be stayed if an arbitration agreement exists between the parties that the matter concerned must be referred to arbitration. The application for a stay of proceedings must be made after the entering of appearance but before any pleadings are lodged. Similar provisions are contained in the existing laws.

The power granted to the court by Clause 7 to order that a dispute be determined by way of interpleader proceedings or that interpleader disputes be decided by arbitration, is new and is based on Section 5 of the British Arbitration Act, 1950. These provisions are useful and we consider that they may advantageously be used here.

Clause 8. The court is now expressly being granted the power to extend the periods within which arbitration proceedings must commence according to the arbitration agreement if it is of the opinion that undue hardship may otherwise be caused.

Clause 9 simply provides that the reference shall be to a single arbitrator unless a contrary intention is expressed in the agreement. This provision is in agreement with the existing provisions in the various laws and ordinances.

Clause 10 prescribes the powers of the parties to appoint arbitrators to fill vacancies and the procedure to be followed in regard to such appointments. These provisions are really only a re-enactment of the already existing provisions.

The powers of the parties to appoint umpires and to fill vacancies, which are contained in Clause 11 are not unknown to our law but are now being more clearly defined.

Clause 12. It may be that the parties to an arbitration agreement cannot agree on the appointment of an arbitrator or that a party who has to appoint an arbitrator fails to do so, or that the parties fail to appoint a sufficient number of arbitrators or an umpire or to fill a vacancy which has arisen, as a result of which the implementation of the provisions of the agreement may of course be thwarted. In addition a more or less similar position may arise if the arbitrator or umpire appointed is removed from office or his appointment is terminated. In order to avoid a deadlock in such cases, the necessary powers are being given to the court in Clause 12 to appoint an arbitrator or umpire, and the procedure applying in such cases is prescribed. For the rest, the powers of an arbitrator or umpire appointed by the court are prescribed. These provisions are more or less in accordance with the existing provisions but have been adapted wherever necessary.

The circumstances in which the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire is terminated are set out in Clause 13. For obvious reasons it is necessary that the appointment of an arbitrator or umpire should not be terminated unilaterally, unless the agreement authorizes such a step. The necessary clarity in regard to this matter is now being provided. For the rest, the provisions are fair and reasonable.

Clause 14. It is understandable that it is essential that the powers of the arbitration court should be clearly defined. The court’s powers in respect of the discovery of documents, the answering of interrogatories, the submission of pleadings, the inspection of goods, the recording of evidence by a commissioner and the procedure to be followed in the arbitration proceedings are regulated by Clause 14. Furthermore, the manner in which a decision has to be arrived at in cases where the arbitration court consists of two or more arbitrators are also clearly defined in the Bill.

Clause 15 simply regulates the procedure to be followed in order to notify the parties of the place and the time where the arbitration proceedings will be held, and in cases where a party fails to appear at the proceedings.

Clause 16 is mainly a re-enactment of existing provisions regulating the procedure to be followed to ensure the attendance of witnesses in the arbitration court.

The recording of evidence is provided for by Clause 17. For the first time now parties are being given the right to agree as to the manner in which and the extent to which the evidence should be recorded. Seeing that this is being done for the first time, hon. members will realize that one can save much in time and costs by entering into such an agreement, e.g. to hear only a portion of certain evidence. The reference of questions in regard to procedure or of an interlocutory nature to an umpire, as provided for in Clause 18, is simply a re-enactment of existing provisions.

For obvious reasons it is essential that there should be no uncertainty as to the powers of an umpire, and the powers set out in Clause 19 are mainly in agreement with the existing provisions.

The only new principle introduced by Clause 20 is that the arbitration court can be requested or ordered to submit a special case to an advocate for his opinion. Such a step is possible in Britain and hon. members who practice here will realize that we can also usefully do so and that it can lead to a saving of costs in an arbitration.

There is a lack of statutory provisions in this country prescribing the general powers of the court in respect of a reference in terms of an arbitration agreement. It is desirable to obtain certainty in regard to this matter. The powers granted in Clause 21 will enable the court in suitable cases to grant the necessary relief and it is in agreement with the powers the court has in other cases. In order to ensure the smooth running of the proceedings of an arbitration court it is necessary to prescribe sanctions, as in the case of any other court case, in case witnesses or other persons obstruct the proceedings. The provisions of Clause 22 will ensure effective action being taken against such people and are more or less in agreement with the already existing provisions which apply in the case of the proceedings of a court of law.

Clause 23 is really only a re-enactment of existing provisions prescribing the periods within which an arbitration court must make its award. In order to have certainty it is now being expressly provided that the award of the arbitration court must be put in writing. Hon. members will find that in Clause 24, and they will agree that this provision is essential for the sound administration of justice we want to achieve.

The provisions of Clause 25 in terms of which the award of the arbitration court shall be delivered in the presence of the parties really only confirms the rule which applies in practice to all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Clause 26 grants the arbitration court the right to make an interim award, while Clause 27 empowers it in certain circumstances to order the specific performance of any contract. Both provisions are new to our law, but can advantageously be applied to arbitration proceedings without creating serious problems.

Clause 28, which provides that an award shall be final and not subject to appeal unless the agreement otherwise provides, is only a re-enactment of existing provisions and ensures the speedy settlement of disputes. The provisions in regard to the payment of interest on the amount of the award are new in so far as arbitration awards are concerned but are in line with the legal provisions concerning the payment of interest on any judgment debt in any other normal case. This principle is not unknown in arbitration proceedings in other countries.

The power granted by Clause 30 to the arbitration court to correct any patent error is well known in the proceedings in a court of law and is not only useful but also an essential provision. Clause 31, which provides that an award may be made an order of court and can be enforced in the same way as an order of court simply reaffirms the existing practice. The provisions in regard to the remittance of an award contained in Clause 32 simply constitute a re-enactment of the existing provisions. The power of the court to set aside an award in certain circumstances is long-established practice and is simply being re-enacted in Clause 33. The provisions in regard to the remuneration of arbitrators contained in Clause 34 are not new and are essential in order to protect the rights of parties. In fact, the taxation of accounts in the case of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is well known and exists in practice. The provision in Clause 35, that the awarding of costs in regard to arbitration proceedings is within the discretion of the arbitration court, introduces no new principle. The arbitration agreement may, however, provide otherwise or the arbitration tribunal may fail to tax the costs or to determine them. In both cases the taxing master of the Supreme Court may tax the costs. The court may also fix the scale on which the costs should be taxed if the award is made an order of court and the arbitration tribunal has not taxed or determined the costs in the first place. The parties are now, however, prevented from providing in an agreement which makes provision for the reference to arbitration of future differences that each one will in every case have to pay his own costs.

The court’s power to make an order in regard to costs in matters decided or considered by it is being retained in Clause 36. It is necessary to have clarity in regard to the way in which documents in arbitration proceedings are to be served. The method of service set out in Clause 37 is in agreement with the provisions for the service of documents in ordinary civil cases. The power granted to the court in Clause 38 to extend prescribed periods is necessary in order to prevent hardship. According to the rules of interpretation, the State is not bound by an Act unless the Act makes it clear that it is bound. It is therefore necessary expressly to provide, as is done in Clause 39, to what extent the State is bound. Numerous legal provisions exist regulating the reference of matters to arbitration. The provisions contained in this Bill can in many instances fruitfully be used in cases of arbitration in terms of the aforementioned legal provisions. There may, however, also be cases where special circumstances make it necessary that the reference to arbitration should be done according to special provisions. The provisions of Clause 40 are therefore necessary on the one hand to make the provisions of the Bill in regard to reference to arbitration in terms of other laws, applicable and on the other hand to leave the door open for the application of special measures in cases where special circumstances demand it.

The Administration of South West Africa wishes this Bill also to be applied to that territory, and that is being done in terms of Clause 41. Apart from the repeal of certain legal provisions for which provision is made in Clause 42, the continuation of arbitration proceedings which were commenced before the passing of this Bill and the application of the provisions of this Bill to arbitrations in terms of arbitration agreements entered into before the coming into operation of this Bill, are being provided for. That is necessary in order to remove any doubt as to what provisions will apply in such cases.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the principles and the provisions of this Bill which I heartily recommend to the House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support this measure. It has obviously been the subject of study over long periods and it is a measure which is very much overdue. The present position is entirely unsatisfactory, and the sooner we can have the position that in matters of this sort we have standard provisions affecting the whole of the Republic, the better it will be, not only for the legal profession, but also for the general public.

The provisions of this measure will require careful study, also in the further stages of this Bill, but I will say here that we are very anxious to see this measure on the Statute Book. The oldest provision goes back the best part of 70 years, and one of the provinces there is no satisfactory provision whatsoever.

Then, too, Sir, there is great uncertainty in respect of this matter in various respects, most of which—as far as I have been able to ascertain—are covered by the provisions of the measure now before us. I think that some of the provisions will have to be looked at carefully, and as an example I should like to refer the House to the provisions in respect of the taking of an opinion from the Court or from an advocate.

What clause?

Clause 20, Sir. It reads as follows:

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that opinion of the court or the opinion of counsel is in no way binding upon the arbitrators, and yet there is a provision to the effect that no appeal lies from the decision of the arbitrators. I think it is a point which may warrant further examination. It seems to me off-hand quite wrong that where a matter of law is referred to the court, the arbitrators are not bound by the decision of the Court, a decision which would, presumably, be a judgment of the court which could be appealed against to a higher court in that event. But if it is purely an opinion, I have some doubts as to the legal effect if the arbitrators do not accept the opinion of the court. I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I hold the view at this moment that if the arbitrators do not adopt the opinion of the court to whom the point of law was referred, their decision would not be open to appeal. It would not be the first time that such a situation would have arisen, because there is the famous Transvaal case which served before the Water Court. Now, that Court consisted of a judge, a lay assessor and an engineer assessor. When a point of law had to be adjudicated on, the two assessors over-ruled the opinion of the judge. Naturally the unsuccessful party appealed, believing there was no result until surprisingly the court of appeal held that the law was in fact as laid down by the assessors, and not as laid down by the judge.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this point—and others in this measure—should be carefully studied, a measure which, I must say, appears to be very well drafted and very well considered, and I, for one, believe it will work very satisfactorily in practice. Therefore we will support this measure, but we would like further opportunity of studying the Bill which, I may say, has been the subject of study by this side for quite some time. We to-day had the advantage of a speech by the Minister on the various provisions of the Bill, and he went into considerable detail, something which might with advantage be followed by some of the Minister’s colleagues.

You had better start studying to-night because the Committee stage will be dealt with to-morrow.

Well, I can assure the hon. the Minister that we have studied this Bill, but we will not have copies of the Minister’s speech for several days at least. However, we regard this measure as necessary and important, and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes said that the cost of litigation is high and that the courts take a long time to decide matters. Well, if that was so, one would have thought that great use would be made of arbitration; yet it is surprising how very little use is made of the procedure. One does find that where arbitration proceedings are obligatory, use is made thereof, but in many instances when matters could be referred to arbitration, the parties prefer to go to court.

I do not think there are five cases a year.

The hon. the Minister has indicated, that there are only about five cases a year dealt with by way of arbitration; that proves many things. First of all I think it proves what we often affirm in this House, namely the confidence that people have in our courts. It also, I think, shows that they have come to realize that there are considerable delays in arbitration. Indeed, with certain recent steps designed at speeding up the processes of the courts, coupled with steps to improve the rules of court by creating uniform rules, the delays in the courts, if they were considerable in the past, will be much reduced in future. But in arbitration you get considerable delays because the arbitrator is normally a professional man in some field and you have to fit in the sittings to suit his convenience and that of counsel, attorneys and everybody else. Where you have had such little use made of arbitration, I think there are also other reasons for it in additions to those I have mentioned. One is, of course, that you have to pay the arbitrator, whereas the parties do not pay a Judge, and this can be a very considerable item. I think another important reason why it is not used much is because of the uncertain procedures, the uncertainty as to what the procedures were in certain cases. I think it is in this respect that this Bill is so much to be welcomed. While there may be points where one might prefer something slightly different it undoubtedly sets out many provisions with great lucidity and it covers many gaps that there have been in the position up to the present.

The hon. the Minister said that he was improving upon the Arbitration Acts of the three provinces. The Orange Free State had no Arbitration Act at all, and to that extent this is an improvement. But even where the various provinces had their Acts, the provisions here are so much fuller that they represent a big improvement. They remove the uncertainty which a person wishing to resort to arbitration may have had as to the procedure he should follow. It is an expensive business not to follow the right procedure because one’s opponent is ready to spring upon any procedural mistake, and that may cause extra costs and delays. So where we have a Bill like this which has clearly been drawn with a great knowledge of the subject, a Bill which appears to have drawn upon legislation in other countries, as well as taking the best of what has been in our own legislation for many years, one can but welcome it. I must confess that notwithstanding this improvement, I feel that people will continue to prefer to go to court, but if they are obliged to go to arbitration or choose to do so, they will now have a much better instrument for their purpose. One is glad to observe in the Bill that a fair degree of flexibility has been retained. One finds in many clauses of the Bill that while a certain procedure is prescribed, that need not be followed if the parties choose a different one. That applies to many matters. It applies to the fee to be paid to the arbitrator. Agreement can be arrived at and if there is no agreement a certain course must be followed. It applies to other matters too. I welcome the fact that the State is also to be subject to these provisions. I think there is too often a tendency to put the State in a privileged position as against the subject in regard to any matter, and it is good therefore that it was deemed fit to bind the State in this regard. One is glad to see that in Clause 14 various matters of detail are covered; e.g. it is now laid down clearly that there can be orders for the discovery of documents and for the answering of interrogatories and orders to produce documents, etc. In addition, the various pleadings are specifically mentioned and the possibility of amending those pleadings. It is perfectly true that in the past arbitrators and those appearing before them have probably arrived at a position where they did make use of these various procedures I have referred to, but there was often uncertainty, and so it is good to have it all clearly set out. One is struck by the fact that no time limits are laid down for filing the various pleadings. The hon. the Minister will know that there are specific time limits laid down for Supreme Court pleadings, which have to be complied with, and which tend to ensure that the action is speedily heard. One is of course often grateful where there are no time limits or where extension can be obtained … [Interjection.] I am dealing with Clause 14, which refers to the various pleadings, and as far as I am aware it does not lay down any time within which they must be filed. It is true, of course, in regard to all time limits laid down in this Bill that they may be extended by agreement with the arbitrator, and that is a very reasonable provision. I only touch upon this because, as I have pointed out, people tend to prefer the courts and not to go to arbitration, and where one is creating a good instrument for those who wish to resort to arbitration, one may be leaving arbitration at a disadvantage if the time can drag on and there is no spur to bring the matter to a hearing. In that connection I mentioned that there is no time limit within which any particular pleading must be filed in an arbitration.

We are glad that this further fruit of the Law Revision Committee has been brought to this House by the Minister and that they are continually keeping an eye on aspects of the law which require careful and prolonged study and improvement. We are glad that this Bill has come forward after considerable labour on their part, and we feel confident that when people do resort to arbitration they will have a better instrument to achieve their purposes than hitherto.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said that approximately only five cases a year are referred to an arbitration tribunal. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has pointed out that the costs of arbitration are appreciably lower than those in an ordinary court, and I hope that after this Act comes into operation more use will be made of arbitration. The reason why people do not make use of arbitration more often is that it is not provided for in the agreements. You will note from the Bill, Sir, that the agreement has to provide that a dispute should be referred to arbitration. I am sure that if this Act goes on the Statute Book, attorneys will make more use of it and they will specify in an agreement that if a dispute arises from such agreement it must be referred to arbitration. I myself have been concerned in two arbitration cases, both concerning building contracts. The Provincial Administration of the Transvaal, when accepting tenders and entering into contracts, always stipulates in the contract that in the event of there being a dispute it will be decided by arbitration. Therefore they never go to court with building contracts, but the matter is decided through arbitration, because that takes much less time and is much cheaper.

The hon. member for Pinelands has said that in Clause 14 no time limit is mentioned within which pleadings have to be submitted. I hope the Minister will not introduce such a time limit, because it is not necessary in this case. The English Act which was drafted in 1889 is similar to our law, and it works very well. In England many more cases are sent to arbitration than in our country. There is no provision in the English Act for a time limit within which pleadings must be submitted. In any case, it is not like an ordinary court case where a declaration and a plea have to be submitted. The contract provides what should be done and the dispute is generally about something emanating from the contract, and it is very easy for an arbitrator to decide the case. The arbitrator is generally a person who has specific knowledge of the subject. I hope the Minister will not introduce any amendments in regard to the submission of pleadings within a certain period.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) also referred to Clause 20, which was taken from the English Act. It provides that a matter may be submitted to an advocate for his opinion during the arbitration proceedings. I shall be very glad if this Act can be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible so that attorneys may stipulate in the agreements that use should be made of this Act. That will save costs and it will save the time of the courts and it will be much cheaper for the parties.

This is undoubtedly a very well-drafted piece of legislation and the Law Revision Committee should, I think, be complimented on their very good work. I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House, but there is one matter I want to raise. It could properly be raised in the Committee Stage, but as I can deal with it quite briefly I think it would save time if I raised it now to give the Minister the opportunity to consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

This matter arises from Clause 40 of the Bill and it has to do with the proviso introduced into that clause by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place. When the Minister introduced the proviso, he stated that the object was two-fold, firstly, to make it absolutely clear that as far as provincial ordinances are concerned this Bill when it becomes law will supersede provincial ordinances; and the Minister stated that the object was that only in the case of Acts of Parliament promulgated after this Bill and in which this Bill was specifically excluded, or was inconsistent, would this Bill not apply. I have no quarrel with that object, but as it is framed at present it seems to me that it has a result which was not intended. The result it seems to me to have is this, that in the case of an Act of Parliament promulgated before this Bill but which is inconsistent with this Bill, this Bill will not apply because the proviso reads as follows: “Provided that if that other law is an Act of Parliament, this Act shall not apply … to any such arbitration in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other law”. Now, “that other law” could be a prior Act of Parliament, and in that case this Bill will not apply. I am sure that that was not the Minister’s intention. I raise the point at this stage to give the Minister an opportunity to consider it between now and the Committee Stage.

I thank hon. members for their reception of this Bill and the compliments they have paid to the Law Revision Committee. The matters raised by hon. members on both sides can conveniently be discussed in the Committee State. I just want to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), in passing, that speaking superficially, because I have not had an opportunity to go into the matter more deeply, I think we are dealing here in the first place with the agreement in terms of which counsel’s opinion is sought; secondly, it is the same provision that is contained in the British Act, and they have had no problems or difficulties; and thirdly, I believe that in terms of Clause 33 action may be taken if a wrong decision has been obtained in this way.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson), I think it is implicit in Clause 14 that where the arbitration court has the right to ask for particulars, or has the right to order that something be done, in view of the fact that the court is in session it will say that it must be done within a certain period, and the court will then resumably adjourn until such time as that act has been performed; and the court is of course also entitled to award costs, and if any party refuses to do what the court has ordered it will of course be taken into consideration.

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie), I shall discuss that with him in the Committee Stage after I have had another opportunity of looking at the clause. I agree with the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) that we should be careful not to prescribe too many rules and regulations. We should have a broad framework, but we should be careful not to establish a lay court. The hon. member for Pinelands will also agree with me that we do not wish by means of this Bill to establish another court consisting only of laymen, or to spoil the confidence people have in our existing courts. We just want to establish an orderly procedure in case people, for many reasons, do not wish to go to court but prefer to resort to arbitration. So all we really need is to establish the skeleton of that organization to make awards if the parties fail to set their own conditions. I think then we would have gone as far as we could be expected to go.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The measure we have before us is one which replaces the Administration of Estates Act No. 24 of 1913, and while there are considerable improvements I feel that we can well compliment our predecessors who placed this measure on the Statute Book over 50 years ago. I find that it. has been amended in only very minor respects. Through the years this law has served us well. I think all of us will agree that the time for amendment is due and in fact, in some respects, overdue. Previous attempts to revise this law basically, made some 13 or 14 years ago and even five years before that, foundered and unfortunately they did not reach the Statute Book.

It is interesting, in examining the 1913 Act, to find that that was one of the early laws passed by this Parliament just a few years after Union, and it replaced no fewer than laws which had been passed on this subject over the previous 100 years. The original measure was passed in the Cape in 1833 and there followed some 13 laws amending the law in respect of the administration of estates. In Natal, commencing in 1868, there were no fewer than 11 statutes. In the Transvaal there were only three, and in the Orange Free State only four. There were apparently no comprehensive measures on the law books of the two Republics in respect of this matter, and in 1903 in the one case, and in 1904 in the other, more comprehensive measures were placed on the Statute Book replacing the existing laws. Consequently it is quite clear, in view of the length of time that this piece of legislation has been on the Statute Book, that there certainly has been no hasty legislation in respect of the administration of estates.

This measure has been before the public for quite a considerable period. It has received very wide study. I think it is fair to say that while I and other hon. members on this side have had comments from various organizations, one can well pay a tribute to the law advisers who drew this Bill, because I know of no measure of this importance and complexity which has attracted less memoranda and letters, which one comes to expect in respect of such legislation. Basically I think we will find when we come to the later stages of this measure that there is relatively little objection to the provisions, notwithstanding that there are over 100 clauses.

Coming to some of the points dealt with in this Bill and referring to the Minister’s second-reading speech in which he dealt with some of the more important provisions, I should like immediately to express my satisfaction with the provision in Clause 2 that the Master or the Deputy Master or the Assistant Master must be in possession of certain stipulated legal qualifications. I think that in general that has been the practice. I think it is sound that it should become a part of the law because there is no question that it is essential that they should have this knowledge. Here I should like to pay tribute to the services which have been rendered to this country by successive Masters of the Supreme Court. I should like to say, from a long period of practice at the Side-Bar, that I know of no Government office which has been overworked to a greater extent than the Master’s Office, because generally it is my belief that these offices have been hopelessly under-staffed. The staffs there have worked under very great difficulties and they have not always been able to deal with the work with the speed one would like to see, and that in spite of the absolute devotion to duty which I have always found in these offices. I should like to make a plea to the Minister. Perhaps something has already been done. If so, I should like to hear of it, but if not, I should like to see an investigation into this matter because I believe that it is of the highest importance that the offices of the Master should be fully and adequately staffed because it is important in respect of the administration of estates that accounts which are lodged with the Master should be promptly dealt with. I can say from my own experience, while paying tribute to the services of the officials concerned, that I believe that most of us who have had experience of the administration of estates have found that there have been long delays, not due to the officials in the Master’s Office, but due to the fact that those offices have generally been under-staffed.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

I am glad you gave me the opportunity to make my point, Sir, because it is of some importance. But I did not propose to carry the matter any further.

Regular inspections are made of these offices.

Yes, I know there has been some improvement in recent times, but I felt it to be my duty to raise the matter here. The majority of the other provisions can best be dealt with in detail in the Committee Stage, but I want to refer to some of them.

I welcome the provision which allows of the Master calling for security even in cases where the executor is normally exempt or has been exempted from finding security by the will. I think that is a very important provision, because very often the rights of other persons are concerned, and the Minister will know that there have been many cases where people have not been able to get their just dues because in cases where security had not been furnished there was no remedy. That remedy is now contained in this Bill and it is a very definite improvement on our present legislation on the subject.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us a little more about the requirement that a banking account may be opened with a banking institution approved by the Master. I take it that this is intended as a measure which will be in the interests of estates, because if a particular banking institution is not a sound one, then action could be taken. If that is so, this is an improvement on the present position, but in general, of course, I think most estate banking accounts have been opened with established banks. Section 34 now provides that where creditors do not give instructions that an estate must be sequestrated in terms of the Insolvency Act, the estate must be realized in terms of the simple procedure laid down in this clause. Sir, that provision has been in the law up to the present time, but I must say that I welcome the fact that further provision is being made here to amplify the present law on the subject. I think these further provisions are necessary.

I welcome the provision which deals with the diminishing value of money and which permits the Master to allow a summary procedure to be followed in administering estates up to a value of R2,000 instead of R600 as at present. I believe that that is a very wise provision. It is quite unnecessary in respect of comparatively small estates of this sort to take all the time which inevitably has to be taken in administering these estates—a procedure which is proper when there are big amounts involved but which causes quite unnecessary expenditure in the case of small estates. I wonder whether in appropriate cases, especially where security is given, one could not even increase the figure above the figure provided for in this measure.

We can discuss that fruitfully in the Committee Stage.

I merely want the hon. the Minister to give it some thought in the meantime.

Sir, I do not want to traverse all the provisions of this Bill. It is a measure which, as I said in my opening remarks, can best be dealt with clause by clause in the Committee Stage. We welcome this Bill; we will help to place it on the Statute Book. I understand that we are likely to get a White Paper in the course of the next day or two from the hon. the Minister’s Department …

It is being printed at the moment and it will be Tabled at any time now.

We look forward to getting the White Paper and having the opportunity of studying these provisions in the light of what is said in the White Paper, and I take it that there will be a reasonable interval after the Tabling of the White Paper before the next stage of the Bill is taken. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to give us that assurance.

It certainly will not come up again this week.

Well, that sounds reasonable enough. I hope it will take a little longer before the next stage is taken.

I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). This Bill is very welcome. I also agree that the 1913 Act which was drafted by our forefathers was particularly well drafted, so much so that to date hardly any amendments have been made to it. But times change and therefore it has now become necessary to make certain amendments to the Act. I am very glad that Clause 2 of the Bill now provides that Masters of the Supreme Court must have legal qualifications. I am thinking of a case where a dispute arose in regard to a claim in a deceased estate and where a senior advocate appeared before the Master. I do not know whether this particular Master had legal qualifications, but I do not think one would feel very comfortable if a senior advocate appeared before one with all the various court decisions and one then had to give a judgment. I think we can state that the Masters we have had in recent years have performed their duties excellently. We cannot but be proud of what they have done for us in their capacity as Master.

I do not want to say much about the shortage of staff. I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) that the staff of the Masters are sadly overworked and that much can be done to facilitate their position.

In passing, I just want to refer to Clause 17, which is being taken over from the old Act—it is Section 31 (4) of the old Act—in which provision is made that letters of administration may be issued to a woman, but only if her husband agrees to it in writing if she is married and the marital power is excluded in terms of the antenuptial contract. Sir, in 1953 we passed an Act here in which we granted more rights to women, and I wonder whether the time has not arrived to delete the provision that a woman must obtain the written consent of her husband, so that a woman, even though the marital power is not excluded in the antenuptial contract, may be appointed by a testator to act as executrix. The fact that such a testator appoints a woman as executrix proves that he has confidence in her, and I think that in such a case a woman ought to have the right to accept the appointment whether her husband gives his written consent or not. I do not wish to say much more about this.

Another point which struck me is that when a person dies it is no longer necessary to hand in the will, the death certificate, the inventory, etc., at the magistrate’s office. It can be sent direct to the Master. I am very glad of that. It saves quite a lot of time and eliminates the possibility of these documents being lost. I am very glad that this amendment is contained in the Bill.

There is something else which worries me, and I wonder whether it cannot be amended in the Committee Stage. When the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill he continually referred in his introductory speech to the “Weesheer”. But nowhere in the Bill is there any reference to a “Weesheer”; the reference is to the Master. I think the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) will certainly agree with me if I ask the Minister to change the word “Meester” to “Weesheer”. “Meester” is a literal translation of “Master”.

Order! This is a matter which may be discussed in the Committee Stage.

Sir, I am asking the Minister whether it can be amended in the Committee Stage. For the rest, I have no comment. In regard to the other clauses, I will wait until we get to the Committee Stage. I am glad that eventually, after all these years, we are now having a new Administration of Estates Act.

As a practising attorney I feel it is my duty to say a few words. I am sure I am speaking on behalf of most of the members of the Side-Bar throughout the country when I say how pleased I am to see this particular Bill before the House. It is streamlining the original Act of 1913 which, despite the fact that it has been one of the greatest Statutes in so far as the protection of the rights of heirs and others is concerned, nevertheless did require a certain amount of streamlining to meet the progress of the day.

There are two interesting aspects I wish to refer to. I notice that in Clause 52 the right of substitution of the executor is taken away. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would reconsider that because in most wills that are drawn in this country it has become customary, in appointing an executor, to provide that he shall have the right of substitution. As the clause is worded it may well be a peremptory clause depriving the testator of the right to make provision for such substitution.

The clause dealing with administrators is an entirely new innovation in this type of legislation and a very welcome one, if I may say so. I would like the hon. the Minister to know how pleased we are that this has been brought about because hitherto administrators have been appointed in wills and have virtually, in a sense, been able to do as they wish. The Master has had no actual control over them although there has been a tendency of late on the part of the Master to ask for security even where it has been provided in the will that no security need be found. I think the object of the Master’s office has been to try to maintain some form of control. Provision is now made for the first time for proper control to be exercised over administrators. I think that is a very pleasing feature indeed, a feature which I hope will become widely known so that the public will be aware that in this particular respect the same control which is exercised over executors will in future be exercised over administrators. Proper accounts have to be kept and an administrator can be obliged to get an accountant to certify the correctness of the accounts from year to year. We find in practice that this is really essential. We know the difficulty in amending this type of legislation, legislation which deals with deceased estates, wills and so on because of our background of Roman-Dutch law and so forth. It is good to know, however, that, despite all the years it has taken eventually to introduce amending and fresh provisions of this nature to the light of day, the provisions we find here have at last been introduced. The profession will appreciate it because I think it is good for the profession and good for the public.

I will have a little more to say during the Committee Stage because in the light of the White Paper we may study some of the clauses a little more closely and raise other issues. But the general principle contained in this Bill is a welcome one and I think the profession and the public will appreciate the fact that the Minister has had the courage to amend one of the pillars of our Statutes namely the Administration of Estates Act.

I thank hon. members for their reception of this Bill. I may say that it is the result of long consultations between the Department and all interested bodies. I particularly want to mention the name of Mr. van Vuuren. He is a very efficient officer of the Department who was entrusted with the drafting of this Bill before it went to the law advisers. I shall welcome it if we can discuss all the interesting points raised by hon. members like the hon. members for Florida and Germiston, in the Committee Stage. We do not amend the Administration of Estates Act every day, and therefore we must welcome our having an opportunity to go into these points, particularly hon. members who are attorneys. In the light of their experience over the years, they can discuss these matters fully. I fear that I shall not be able to take the matter much further from my own experience, because the one thing I never did in all the years I practised was to administer an estate. I left that to my partners. I never had the desire to do so myself. I am therefore quite willing to be guided by hon. members who have practical experience of this matter, and I think that particularly after the White Paper which is now being printed has been handed to hon. members, we can have a very fruitful discussion on this Bill in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. Speaker, I think you will permit me to enlighten the House as to the reason why I have taken this step. The House will remember that representations have repeatedly been been made to me by both sides of the House to do something about the delimitation conditions which a Delimitation Commission have to observe so that there will not be any dissatisfaction in connection with the delimitation of constituencies. You will remember that when these representations were made I always replied that the position would in due course be investigated. The Government in its wisdom decided that the best way to meet the position would be the way in which the Bill, which has been introduced and which has been read for the first time, does indeed offer a solution, if not a complete solution then perhaps a partial solution. You will remember, Sir, that it is and has always been customary that whenever the Electoral Act is amended it is amended on the basis of mutual consultation between the Opposition and the Government party. Because we are all affected by the Electoral Act that has been the custom and I have again done so. I consulted the working group of the Opposition and before I asked for leave to introduce the Bill they informed me that they had no objection in principle although there were minor points on which they differed. Following upon that I then introduced the Bill which has been read for the first time. Since then, last Friday, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) informed me that the Opposition did not see its way clear to support the Bill and that they would oppose it. It would actually amount to a departure from the usual procedure to try to get as much unanimity as possible on such a matter, if not in respect of the details then in respect of the principles involved. For this reason I do not think I have any option, so as not to depart from the usual practice, but to refer this Bill to a Select Committee and I trust the House will approve of it.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns has devoted itself with great success to its duties and has achieved great success over the past 54 years. The question arises, however, what the future tisk of the Akademie has to be in a world in which major changes have taken place.

In view of the fact that the Akademie regards the safety and continued existence of our fatherland essential for the maintenance and development of our language, practically no other sector and no part of our society falls outside its sphere of interest. Although the Akademie initially served Afrikanerdom in a defined field, that field has gradually become wider and more comprehensive, so that it can rightly be said to-day that the Akademie wants to serve the cultural life of the Afrikaner nation in all spheres so that it will develop into spiritual maturity.

The Akademie therefore feels that the definition of its objects is too narrow to enable it to achieve the proposed wider objectives and has therefore requested the Government to amend Section 4 of the Act-—a request we are gladly complying with. In terms of the amendment in Clause 1 of the Bill the reference to “South African Archaeology” is deleted and substituted by the words “culture” and “technique”.

“Culture” and “science” are wider concepts. “Science” is generally interpreted as not only meaning the “sciences” but also the humanities such as psychology. In the scientific sense archaeology is classified under the concept “science” and in a wider sense it also forms part of “culture”. The provision contained in Clause 4 that the objects of the Akademie are to promote, inter alia, science, includes the promotion for example, of South African archaeology. It is consequently not necessary to mention the promotion of South African archaeology specifically in the Act whilst it remains silent on the other humanities such as sociology and economy.

In view of the fact that it can also be argued that the Akademie is not competent to operate beyond the field of promoting precisely South African history and archaeology it is necessary to delete the word “archaeology”.

“Culture” in its widest sense includes everything produced by man, be it in the field of science, be it in the field of art. By inserting the word “culture” we shall therefore confer statutory power on the Akademie to continue with its activities in the cultural field.

By deleting the qualifying word “South African” from “art” we are widening the field of activity of the Akademie in regard to the promotion of art. As in the case of culture and science art is not always specifically of a South African nature. Obviously however the Akademie promotes South African art and culture and it is unnecessary to state that in the Act.

Since 1941 the Akademie has consisted of two faculties, namely, the Faculty of Art and Humanities and the Faculty of Science and Technique and makes a distinction between the pure sciences under which mathematics and nature study and chemistry fall and the applied sciences under which engineering falls. It is consequently necessary for historical and organizational reasons to state in the Act that “the technique” (applied sciences) are to be promoted. In theory there may perhaps be no difference between the pure sciences and “technique” but in practice a distinction is nevertheless observed in the scientific world.

I thank the hon. the Minister for the fine exposition he has given of the objects of the Academy. I want to tell him at once that we have no objections to the principle of this Bill. I think we also appreciate the way in which the hon. the Minister spoke about the various faculties. With your approval, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to another aspect of this matter. This Bill amends Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1959 Act. It seems to me that the most important amendments to Section 4 are mainly changes in the wording and in the construction; these are changes to which, of course, we can have no objection. But this particular clause also refers to certain new faculties, which have already been referred to by the hon. the Minister. I think it will be interesting to trace what happened 54 years ago, when certain aspects of the objects of the Academy came into prominence. The objects of the Academy have been changed from time to time. As the Minister said, it has kept pace with developments over the years. At its inception the South African Academy had certain objects. The foundation meeting was held here in Cape Town on 1 and 2 July 1909 during the session of the National Convention, when leading members made use of the opportunity to convene such a meeting. It is interesting to record what the object of that meeting in 1909 was and who attended it. The Academy was founded with the object of trying to put an end to the conflict between Afrikaans and High Dutch at that time and, secondly, to try to get the two groups to co-operate in preserving and promoting Dutch and supporting the Dutch-Afrikaans culture in its then struggle to survive in South Africa. Amongst others many leading South Africans attended this foundation meeting, and you will allow me to mention their names here. This meeting was attended by, for example, General J. B. M. Hertzog, F. S. Malan, D. F. Malan, J. H. H. de Waal, J. H. Hofmeyr, and N. J. de Wet, all of them men who have left their traces in this House and in the political and cultural history of South Africa. It is indeed an imposing group of South Africans whose names I have just mentioned. The following motion was moved by the late General Hertzog and seconded by the late Professor W. J. Viljoen. I will read it in the original language, because I want to come back to it later—

[Translation: That a body be established for the purpose of promoting the Dutch language and literature in South Africa, namely, a strong central body that will represent the whole of the country, that will adopt a sympathetic attitude to both forms of Dutch, that will bring expert knowledge to bear in deciding issues relating to language and literature and that will have a recognized general authority in negotiating with the university or the Government.]

The object was clear, therefore, and the two pillars, Dutch and Dutch-Afrikaans (which later became Afrikaans), still stand to-day. These two pillars have remained standing over all the years. I think the issue involved at the time, which was to preserve Dutch-Afrikaans and to ensure its survival, has to a large extent disappeared in practical life. During the past years the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections have drawn closer together and this has led to their recognizing one another’s rights to conciliation and to cooperation between the two language groups in South Africa, and as far as I am concerned, this matter is no longer a vexed question.

Moreover, more than language and art is concerned in the matter to-day; more than just the Dutch language and the Dutch-Afrikaans language, or Afrikaans, which it subsequently became. As the hon. the Minister has said, the faculties have increased. At present there are many more faculties than the two I have mentioned. As hon. members know, the original name of the Academy was “De Zuid-Afrikaanse Akademie voor Taal, Letteren en Kunst”. Over the years this Academy has expanded and new faculties dealing with archaeology, history, and the Dutch and the Afrikaans languages and literature have been established, and to-day, where the Academy is keeping pace with the developments of the times, “science and technics” are being inserted in the present Act.

The 1921 legislation provided that the association would in future be known as the “Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Kuns en Wetenskap”. In 1921 we finally switched over to Afrikaans. Hon. members know that from 1914 onwards Afrikaans was accepted as the language for everyday use, and in 1921, when the constitution of the S.A. Academy was laid down, Afrikaans was used.

The amendment in lines 9 and 10 is also an interesting one. Section 4 of the 1959 Act reads as follows—

No mention is made of “culture”. In the measure before us it is proposed that this section should read as follows—

The Minister has pointed out how essential it is to add “culture”, and I fully agree with him—

As far as the Dutch language is concerned, no mention is made of “culture”. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us why this new dispensation has been proposed by, I take it, the South African Academy, and why “culture” has been omitted as far as the Dutch language is concerned.

With these few observations I want to say that we on this side of the House not only support the Bill, but also trust that the S.A. Academy will continue to make its valuable contribution to the promotion of Afrikaans.

I feel friendly disposed towards the Akademie. I saw a report in one of our newspapers last year to the effect that the Akademie had expressed an opinion on English usage. They said that they did not think it was sound English usage to speak about “one rand”, “ten rand”, “a million rand”, and so on; they said that that was not sound English usage although it might be good Afrikaans usage to say “een rand”, “tien rand”, etc. Well, I am on the side of the Akademie, and I am grateful to them for having expressed that opinion.

Coming to the Bill, there is one point I should like to mention in the only clause that matters, the first clause. The first clause says that amongst the things they wish to dc is the promotion of South African history, art, science and techniques. I do not know, Sir, how you promote history. We have often heard, “blessed is the country that has never had a history”. I think that what they mean is to promote the study of South African history. In South Africa we do not want any more history; we have had more than enough and I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should reconsider the drafting—not his drafting, of course, but the drafting of the experts. I should like him to go into this matter before we come to the Committee Stage.

Finally, I should like to ask him whether it is customary to subsidize the Akademie. Does the Government subsidize the Akademie?

Yes.

I think provision is made for it under Item L, where there is an amount of R88,000. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether provision is made for it under that item, and, if that is so, what the amount is.

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) who has briefly outlined to us the value, the meaning and the past of the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. I did not regard it as necessary to do so because it is such a well known subject but it was just as well that he has again sketched it briefly to us so that it can become better known. Where the great honour has recently been bestowed upon me by appointing me as an honorary member of the Akademie it gives me great pleasure to note that the activities of the Akademie are so highly applauded and regarded as being of such high value. The hon. member wants to know why the word “culture” has been deleted as far as Dutch is concerned. The word “culture” did not appear previously in the Act. We naturally are deeply indebted to the Dutch language. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) places exceptionally high value of the Dutch language and last Friday he complained and said too little Dutch literature was read in South Africa. Where the Dutch language is so closely related to the Afrikaans language and is to such a great extent responsible for the Afrikaans language it is understandable that the Dutch language and the study of it will always be acknowledged and promoted by Afrikaans speaking people. A nation such as ours naturally takes the best from all cultures and it is not necessary for us to rely on the Dutch culture alone; we can also rely on the cultures of other nations. We borrow from them; we steal from them in order to build up our own culture.

As far as the question of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is concerned regarding the promotion of South African history the hon. member knows as well as I do that the teaching of history has in recent years retrogressed considerably; that it has come to be regarded as one of the redundant subjects. There was even a time, which has fortunately passed, when history, geography, nature study and hygiene were all combined into one subject, namely, social study, in the primary schools in the Transvaal. Parents, teachers and other educationists were vigorously opposed to it and fortunately it came to an end. A nation which does not know its own history, always of course in relation to the history of the rest of the world, because it cannot isolate itself completely, is in the long run a spineless nation. As far as the promotion of the South African history is concerned it is of course the task of the Akademie to do research and to devote themselves specifically to promoting the study of history. I do not think any fault can be found with that.

The hon. member also wanted to know to what extent the Akademie was being subsidized. I heard the Speaker whisper that I could not go into that at the moment; I would be out of order. We shall therefore discuss that matter on a later occasion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

In terms of the University of Port Elizabeth Act of 1964 the convocation which consists of members of the Senate and the graduates of the University can nominate one person to represent it on the Council once its numbers have reached the figure of 100. It is expected that the figure of 100 will only be reached within a year or two. However, the University which has commenced teaching this year, wishes, for domestic reasons, the Convocation to enjoy representation on the Council at this stage already. As permitted under the Act I already appointed nine members of the Council last year to represent various interests but the term of office of this interim Council expires as soon as the University’s statute is announced which I expect to happen shortly when the various bodies will select their own representatives to serve on the Council. In these circumstances the University Council has unanimously requested me to amend the Act which governs them in such a way that I will be able to appoint somebody to the Council to represent the convocation. I do not think that is unreasonable and I want to accede to their request. Hon. members know that university councils are autonomous bodies and inasmuch as they are fair and reasonable these requests are usually acceded to.

The Bill under discussion is therefore introduced to give effect to the request of these people and the necessary provision appears in Clause 2. I just want to mention that the Opposition moved an amendment in the Other Place where the Bill was introduced for the first time. They asked me whether I would be prepared to accept this amendment. It was an amendment of which I had prior knowledge and I said I was willing to accept it but unfortunately the amendment was not effected in the right place. The Opposition in the Other Place was of the opinion that the words that I could “appoint anybody” could be interpreted to mean that I could appoint more than one person whereas the intention was that I should only appoint one person. I referred the matter to my legal advisers; they do not agree fully with the Opposition, because the intention is that only one person should be appointed, but in order to state it clearly and beyond any doubt I told the Opposition I would be willing to accept the amendment. But as it appears in the printed Bill it is totally wrong. The Opposition in this House approached me again and asked me whether they could put it right in the Committe Stage. I agreed because nothing whatsoever is being achieved with the amendment as printed at the moment.

I think it is also necessary for me to explain Clause 1 of the Bill briefly. During the recess the United pointed out that in terms of Section 10 (3) of the Act no difference was made between a professor at the University and other members of the Senate, except the rector. That is correct but that may give the impression that the term of office of a professor, as a member of the Senate at the University also expires after three years. As hon. members know a professor at a university remains a member of the Senate as long as he occupies his post. Although they do not think that provision will have any effect as far as the professors at their own university are concerned, the legal advisers have suggested that when it became necessary to amend the Act in some other respect, Section 10 (3) should also be suitably amended and that is now being done in Clause 1.

I just want to say that we fully support this Bill. This request has come from the Council of the University itself, and so we have no objection in principle. I am sorry that an error crept in in the Other Place, because it was of course the intention—I quote from the Bill as it read before it was introduced in the Other Place—to omit the words “appoint any person as a member of the council” and to substitute the words “appoint any one person as a member of the council”, which would have made it very clear that the Minister did not have the right to appoint more than one person. Unfortunately this error occurred and the Secretary, or whoever it was, went to the next line and substituted the words “any one other person” for the words “any other person”. As the clause now stands it is ridiculous. I am glad the hon. the Minister has agreed to a change being made, and when we reach the Committee Stage to-morrow, I shall move an amendment accordingly.

There is very little that one can add. There is only one point that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister establishes a university I presume he is anxious to grant it autonomy as soon as he possibly can. If that is his intention, naturally we all feel the same about it. In this case the University Council has been established, but naturally until there are members of convocation, convocation cannot nominate their representatives. Would it not have been worth considering the proposition that the Council should co-opt a member to represent convocation? If the hon. the Minister does not think that that is feasible at this stage, would he perhaps give us an assurance that he will ask the Council as at present constituted to recommend to him a nominee to represent convocation? If the hon. the Minister is prepared to do that, then naturally there can be no objection to his nomination, but it seems to me that now that the University Council has been established, any additional member to represent convocation should be appointed either directly by them or by way of recommendation to the Minister. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider that suggestion before we come to the Committee Stage.

I am doing in this Bill exactly what the Council has asked me to do, namely, to appoint such a person. I can, however, assure the hon. member that I shall not make arbitrary appointments but that I shall ask the University Council to recommend somebody for appointment and in all probability it will be the same person who is serving at the moment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The present Bill takes over many of the provisions of the old Colonial Arbitration Acts. It has particularly taken over the provision that—

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would tell us why it is that the third matter referred to in the Cape Arbitration Act has not been included in those matters which may not be the subject of arbitration, namely, matters in which minors or other persons under legal disability may be interested. I appreciate that to a certain extent the affairs of minors do come up for consideration in connection with matrimonial causes but there can be other matters affecting minors which are not included in such a reference.

One of the other matters which is not included in the present Bill but which appears in the old Cape Arbitration Act is the question of the appointment by the court of an official referee. I am aware of the fact that an official referee can be appointed under the General Law Amendment Act of 1964. I think Clause 40 of that Act provides for that.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 2 of this Bill.

As you please, Mr. Chairman. I was just wishing to get the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the fact that the power of the court to appoint a referee where the parties do not agree has been removed. If I have succeeded in getting that across to the Minister I shall leave it at that.

I am not allowed to give you the explanation.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Clause 3 (1) reads—

In other words, unless the agreement provides otherwise, an arbitration agreement shall not be capable of being terminated, except by consent. Then sub-section (2) goes on to say—

1. (a) set aside the arbitration agreement; or
2. (b) order that any particular dispute referred to … shall not be referred to arbitration; or
3. (c) order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect …

Sir, it is a small point, but I would have thought that it would have been necessary to insert at the commencement of sub-section (2) the words “notwithstanding the provisions of sub-section (1)”. So that sub-section (2) would read—

That will make it clear that there are circumstances in which the arbitration agreement is capable of being terminated other than by the consent of all the parties. It seems to me that unless those words are inserted you will have a somewhat contradictory statement. I would therefore suggest to the Minister for his consideration to include those words.

It is a question of draftsmanship. I shall discuss it with the law advisers.

Thank you.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

In the case of this clause there is a bracket to indicate that Clause 16 (1) (b) does not form part of this Bill. I would like to ask, if I may, why it has been deleted as it seems to be an eminently sensible provision.

If I may just explain. This Bill was originally started in the Other Place and that clause could not be considered there. It has to be considered by this House. When the Bill is disposed of here it must go back to the Other Place to accept this clause as well. I accordingly move the amendment—

To add the following paragraph at the end of sub-section (1):

1. (b) the clerk of the magistrate’s court having jurisdiction in the said area, may issue such summons upon payment of the same fees as are chargeable for the issue of a subpoena in a civil case pending in the magistrate’s court.

I think that amendment is necessary and we agree to it, of course.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell me why the normal word, “subpoena”, in respect of a document compelling a person to attend court has been replaced by the word “summons” which is also correct? “Summons” is used in respect of court proceedings in rather a different context, it is the document commencing an action. That is the more usual use of the word and it seems to me unusual to use it to replace the word “subpoena”.

The only reason I can suggest is that this Bill was drafted by the Law Revision Committee whereas other Bills are drafted by the law advisers. The latter accepted that word as coming from the Law Revision Committee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

With reference to the discussion during the second reading on Clause 20 and the doubts expressed by hon. members in that respect, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (2) An opinion referred to in sub-section (1) shall be final and not subject to appeal and shall be binding on the arbitration tribunal and on the parties to the reference.

Hon. members will remember that we discussed Clause 20. And in order to state quite clearly what the Law Revision Committee had in mind when they drafted this clause I moved the amendment as set out above.

I am pleased the hon. the Minister has done so. I think it makes the position clear.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 28,

I move—

1. 29. Where an award orders the payment of a sum of money, such sum shall, unless the award provides otherwise, carry interest as from the date of the award and at the same rate as a judgment debt.

This clause deals with costs and could consequently not be discussed in the Other Place where the Bill was introduced in the first place. The Other Place has therefore left it to this House to approve of it.

I have no objection, Sir, but I want to raise one point. An ordinary judgment of the court carries interest at the rate of 6 per cent even if no interest is payable on a debt. That is not being proposed here but I take it that it is a matter which could be covered in the submission to arbitration if the parties so wish. Is it necessary to make special provision for it?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has asked me to interpret the objects of this clause. I have had an opportunity of again studying the clause. I have also had time to check what I said in haste in the Other Place in respect of this clause and I notice that I omitted the negative in that case. It was obviously omitted by me when I stated the case. The object of this clause is that the provisions of the Bill shall apply in cases of arbitration under any law passed after the commencement of this Act unless a subsequent law passed by Parliament specifically excludes the provisions of this law. The interpretation on which the legal advisers are in agreement is that it will apply to all laws, also to future laws, unless a future law provides that these provisions will not be applicable to it.

May I ask the hon. Minister this question? Is the object to override previous Acts of Parliament?

That is how I understand it.

That is what I thought the object was and it is an object which we on this side of the House would support. But in my view the proviso does not do that. I should like to read the proviso again. It covers two situations. It covers a situation of an Act of Parliament in which this present Arbitration Bill is excluded. It also covers an Act of Parliament with which this present Arbitration Bill is inconsistent. There are two specific situations.

That is the general principle, is it not? The latter overrides the former.

Yes. In respect of an Act of Parliament in which the Arbitration Act is specifically excluded there can be no difficulty because such an Act can only be a subsequent Act of Parliament. But in respect of an Act which is inconsistent as this clause is worded at present, in my view, it could refer to a prior Act of Parliament, not only to a subsequent Act of Parliament, which happens to be inconsistent with this Bill. If I may read out the phrase leaving out the portion dealing with subsequent Acts of Parliament which are specifically excluded I think it will make my meaning clear. The proviso would then read—

Do you want those words excluded?

No. The hon. the Minister does not seem to see the point I am getting at. I am suggesting that the proviso as it reads relates to two situations, namely, an Act of Parliament which specifically excludes this Bill and an Act of Parliament which does not specifically exclude it but which is inconsistent with it. My point is that in respect of an Act of Parliament which specifically excludes it there is no difficulty because that can obviously only refer to a subsequent Act. It is obvious that no prior Act can exclude this one. I accept also the Minister’s intention of wishing to override prior Acts of Parliament by this Bill.

Unless it is stated specifically in those Acts that they are not to be over-rided.

That can only refer to subsequent Acts of Parliament. The point I am making, Sir, is that as it is worded at the moment, the portion of the proviso dealing with Acts which are inconsistent can refer to prior Acts of Parliament as well and not only to subsequent Acts of Parliament. If that is correct then it has this effect that if a prior Act of Parliament, dealing with arbitration, happens to be inconsistent with this Bill the proviso will exclude the operation of this Bill which is not the intention of the Minister and which is a situation which ought not to obtain. If I may just read the clause again leaving out the words “excluded by” I think it would perhaps be clear to the hon. the Minister. In respect of inconsistent Acts the proviso will then read—

May I just explain. Before the introduction of this Bill we had certain Acts in which arbitration was referred to. The Law Revision Committee has felt that that is what they want to say in Clause 40, namely, that where a former Act says “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law this Act will apply”. In that case this Bill, if passed by Parliament, will not apply. The same in the case of Acts passed subsequently to this Bill. If they say the provisions of this Act will not apply then they will not apply. That is the position as the law advisers inform me.

I accept that that is the object the Minister wishes to achieve and I accept that this is a desirable object. That is what this clause should attempt to achieve but I do not believe it is achieving this object …

I discussed it with the law advisers and was informed that that was the position.

I must accept the position but I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would give it further consideration.

I shall give it further consideration. That is what I am told is the object.

I hold the same view as the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie). I want to ask the Minister whether this clause is as it came from the Law Revision Committee or whether it has in fact been redrafted since it came from them.

To the best of my knowledge it is as it came from the Law Revision Committee.

My information is that the proviso was introduced in the Other Place. It may well be therefore that it has not been possible to give it the fullest consideration. The clause says quite clearly that—

That is clearly the intention of the hon. the Minister as he has stated it to-day. The point the hon. member for Musgrave has made is that one part of the proviso will mean, I think, that wherever any previous arbitration ordinance or Act governs an arbitration, and there is any inconsistency with the present Act, whether in the terms of the the Act itself or in the regulations or procedures recognized by that other law, then the Bill we are now considering will not apply. We believe that is not the intention of the hon. the Minister.

In order to state more clearly what the hon. member has in mind, the amendment was moved in the Other Place. The amendment was drafted by the law adviser, Mr. Conradie, who is also a member of the Law Revision Committee. He was present at that meeting. It was particularly to give clear expression to the standpoint that (a) it will apply to all Acts, except Acts passed before the passing of this Act, and where it is expressly excluded; and (b) Acts passed hereafter and where it is expressly excluded. The more I look at the clause, the clearer it becomes to me that this is precisely the intention reflected here. “This Act shall apply to every arbitration under any law passed before or after the commencement of this Act, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other law were an arbitration agreement.” It is therefore quite clear. The general statement is being made that it applies to all arbitrations before and after this Act. Then it continues—

i.e. the law which does not want to make this Act applicable to it—

That is to distinguish it from a provincial ordinance or the regulations of a lesser body—

It therefore follows very clearly that by means of this proviso we want to state exactly what both those hon. members have in mind.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether this refers to both an existing law and a law passed hereafter. The proviso says—

It cannot possibly be excluded by it. It is unlikely that it be a prior Act because this will now be the governing Act or arbitration.

Prior Acts also refer to the various ordinances and to the principles of arbitration.

Yes. But it does seem to me that this leaves room for doubt as to what the intention is. I wonder if it is not possible— we do not want to delay the Bill in any way— for the Minister to get the particular law adviser who drafted the Bill to look at it again. Frankly I think this clause lends itself to different interpretations.

I can do that; but that is my information.

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

I move—

This Bill deals with only two matters. It deals in the first place with the courts as we find them in the Bill, and in the second place it deals with the question of attorney and client costs. In regard to the first aspect, viz. our regional courts, I am glad to be able to tell the House—all practising lawyers are aware of it—that these regional courts are doing excellent work. Not only do they do excellent work but they also take over much work from the Supreme Court, work which would have taken up much of the time of the Supreme Court and which would probably have resulted in our having appreciably to expand the number of Judges of the Supreme Court, with consequent detriment in so far as accommodation, etc., is concerned. Therefore the Department felt—and I wholeheartedly agree with it—that the time had arrived for us to place our regional courts on a firm basis. That is what this Bill seeks to do. The Bill also seeks to insert in the Act what the qualifications are with which regional court magistrates must comply. Hon. members will also find the personnel of the Committee which has to give advice in respect of the persons to be appointed to these regional courts in this Bill. Hon. members will find that they are quite representative and that they are persons who will definitely be able to form the best judgment as to whether these persons have the necessary qualifications and the necessary personality and all the other qualities to fit them to preside in the regional courts.

As hon. members will see in Clause 2 of the Bill, the Committee will consist of the Secretary for Justice, the Deputy Secretary for Justice and so many officials of the Department of Justice occupying the rank of Attorney-General or that of Chief Magistrate or the Under-Secretary for Justice as the Minister of Justice may from time to time appoint. These are par excellence the persons who can judge of the efficiency and the qualities of the magistrates. I do not think I need say anything more in regard to this aspect of the Bill.

I refer hon. members to Clause 3 of the Bill, where the words are inserted “including costs as between attorney and client”. Here we have the case that neither in the Supreme Court Act nor in the Magistrates’ Court Act is the power specifically granted either to a Judge or to a magistrate to grant costs as between attorney and client. This matter was raised in the Nel case in former years in so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, and hon. members will recollect that the Supreme Court decided that in spite of the fact that it was not specifically stated anywhere in an Act it was a long-standing practice and that the Supreme Court had the inherent jurisdiction to accept that practice and to legalize it when anybody cast doubt upon it. In so far as the magistrates’ power in that regard is concerned, all of us who have practised in the magistrates’ courts have grown up with the idea that a magistrate also has that power. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), for example, in the years in which he sat as a magistrate, probably often made an order in regard to attorney and client costs. I myself appeared in cases in which application was made for attorney and client costs, and I can remember one or two cases where such an order was in fact granted. We accepted that in spite of the fact that it was never provided for in an Act, the magistrate’s court by implication had that power. But now, in the case of Hoosan v. Joubert in 1964, the Judge-President of the Transvaal in an appeal case, after having consulted all the authorities, came to the conclusion that (a) in spite of the fact that it was the practice, a magistrate was not allowed to make such an order, and after having consulted the authorities he found that—

The court consequently ordered that the decision of the magistrate in this regard should be set aside. All we are now doing in Clause 3 of the Bill is to legalize this practice which has existed all these years and in which we all believe, and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has said that magistrates do not have this power by implication, we now give them the power in suitable cases to aware attorney and client costs.

The institution of the regional courts has come to be accepted as having filled a very important place. Very important because it has unquestionably speeded up the work of the courts, and nobody would suggest that we should depart from this experiment which, as the Minister rightly said, has proved to be a success. Sir, we welcome also the provisions in relation to the regional magistrates being persons who are properly qualified. In regard to the third point referred to by the hon. Minister, namely the question of costs as between attorney and client, I think it is very wise that provision is being made in this respect. Those who practise in the courts will agree that in general costs between attorney and client have only been awarded where there was very good reason for it, and it certainly would limit the discretion of our judicial officers if it is not possible to impose this penalty in such cases where the court thinks fit to do so. We welcome the fact that this is being clarified. I must say with great respect to the hon. Judge the phrase “to grant such judgments as to costs as may be just” was very reasonably, if perhaps wrongly, interpreted to lay down that the costs may be costs as between attorney and client in appropriate cases. We all agree that it is most desirable that any doubt should be disposed of. It certainly would be undesirable that someone one day has to appeal to the Appellate Division on that point to establish the law. It is far better that Parliament should take time by the forelock. Regarding the other provision of the Bill, the establishment of the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board, this seems to be a wise provision and one can only hope that in practice it will be as successful as all of us believe it will be.

I am glad to be able to lend my support to this Bill as well. The establishment of the regional courts after June 1952 has been a marked success in the system of the administration of justice, and I think the hon. Minister is quite right when he says that these courts have now gone beyond the experimental stage. They certainly have relieved the Supreme Court of a great deal of work which would otherwise have been time absorbing and an unnecessary burden on Judges. At the same time they also relieved the inferior courts of a considerable amount of work in regard to the holding of preparatory examinations. I think one must place on record that much credit for the success of the regional courts must go to the Department of Justice because of the care it has exercised in making appointments of regional magistrates. I know that the magisterial branch has been jealous of its prerogative in that regard and of the duty that has been assigned to it in general to provide from its ranks the incumbent of these higher magisterial posts. I am glad therefore that the hon. Minister has now found it advisable that the practice of selection should be made a part of the legislative scheme for the setting up of these courts by the creation of this new body, the Regional Divisions Appointments Advisory Board.

I myself believe that such a body will be best able to make the most suitable selection in regard to appointments of this nature. I certainly have confidence in the ability of such a body to continue to make their selection in the very careful and deliberate way in which they have done so in the past and that they will make the appointments in the best interests of the administration of justice.

I hope the hon. Minister will tell us why the ten-year period in the first clause is deleted. Originally, the magistrates appointed to regional courts had to serve as a magistrate or additional magistrate, or assistant magistrate for not less than ten years before being appointed as regional magistrates. I accept that ten years might have been an arbitrary period, but I do think that the doing away with it needs some explanation from the hon. the Minister. I am one of those who believe that years of service prove the man, and I think the hon. Minister will agree that the respect of people, that is the subjects of the State, for law and order is governed very largely by the quality of the justice that is administered or meted out in the inferior courts, and as a natural corollary therefore by the quality of the men appointed to mete out justice. Therefore it seems to me that although this might have been an arbitrary period of ten years, the practice has shown that it was a wise provision, and I hope the hon. Minister will explain why this has been deleted.

As regards the last clause, I agree with the hon. Minister when he says that awards of attorney-client costs must have taken place in most magistrates’ courts. I myself thought that the practice was firmly established, but one naturally has to bow to the judgment of the Judge-President of the Transvaal, and I am therefore glad that the hon. Minister has seen fit to put the position beyond any possible doubt by the inclusion of the amendment to paragraph (d) of Section 48 of the Act.

In regard to the Joubert case, it is interesting to note how the Judge motivated his decision. He put it this way—

Then he went on to say that he could not draw such an inference from the Act.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) referred appreciatively to the Department of Justice, more particularly in regard to the action of the Department in connection with the stabilization of the regional courts. I heartily agree with the hon. member and I thank the hon. gentleman for the well-deserved praise they have given to the Department in this regard. I may just add, and I do not think it is inappropriate to do so, that one of the persons who was particularly interested in this matter and who at all times gave a positive lead in regard to it was the present Secretary for Justice, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it was fair and reasonable to extend the period of services of the Secretary so that he could make available his services to the State for a further period of two years.

The question of the ten years was thoroughly considered by the senior officials of the Department and after mature consideration it was felt that in view of the fact that the qualifications are now made so high—we simply cannot set them higher than they are —and in view of the fact that it is now merely a question of the merits and qualifications of the person, the period of service as such is no longer important, and therefore they felt that the period of service could be omitted. In practice I believe that it will still mean that a man will need to have many more years of service, but one wants, as the qualifications have been made so high, to set the ideal for the younger people that the regional court is not beyond their reach and that if they qualify themselves they can go to the regional court and need not necessarily wait for seniority to get there one day. Because that is the reason underlying this amendment I think we must appreciate it and accept it as such. For the rest, I thank hon. members for their acceptance of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This clause, short as it is, contains two important principles. The first is that the Minister may delegate any of the powers conferred on him by the Act to any officer referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 8 seconded to the service of the Board, and the second is the condonation of the sins of omission by the Minister who failed or neglected to discharge the obligations imposed upon him under the Act and for his sins of commission by leaving it to some official of the Board to assume the obligations. I will firstly deal with the first principle, the principle of delegation, and in doing that I want to move the first part of the amendment standing in my name—

During the second-reading debate on this Bill the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) in particular expressed the concern of the Opposition as to any change in the obligations which were imposed upon the Minister and which in effect required him to give his personal attention and approval to matters where called for in the Act. Secondly, he also expressed the Opposition’s concern in regard to the diminution in any way of the Minister’s accountability to Parliament in regard to the administration of the Cape Town Foreshore Act. In his reply the hon. Deputy Minister of Lands was not very specific as to why the need for the delegation had arisen, except to say that there have been certain irregularities found (I think he said by the law-advisers) in regard to the administration of the Act and that condonation was now sought to rectify what had been done. But, Sir, as was stressed in the second reading, and as I think must be stressed again, we are concerned here with an area which is strictly circumscribed. It is a relatively limited area but it contains land of very great value, and those are circumstances which must have weighed with Parliament when the Act was passed in 1950 and which imposed these duties on the Minister. Sir, the delegation in terms of Clause 1 is a delegation which is completely wide. In fact I think it divests the Minister of his obligations and I think it tends to absolve him from his accountability to Parliament in regard to the administration of the Act. It is because of that, in view of this delegation given in very wide terms, that I have thought it necessary to introduce this amendment. The most important section of the Act (No. 26 of 1950) is Section 10 which deals with the objects and powers of the Board and which places certain responsibilities on the Minister requiring his prior approval before any transaction can take place. The most important requirement is “that the board may, with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine (i) sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber any land forming part of the Foreshore”. It goes on a bit further, but that is not important for the purpose of my argument. Now I understood the hon. Deputy Minister of Lands to say that to some extent practice has now been established over the years and that circumstances might be justification for this delegation. Because that is an understandable explanation of the situation, I selected the one aspect of which the Minister is required to give his approval and that is “to sell any portion of the land”. The word “selling” there has a finality about it, and in our view it is a type of transaction to which the Minister should still give his personal approval. The letting, hypothecation or encumbrance of land are not acts of finality, but the selling of land is a final act. I feel therefore that the delegation must be limited in some way, and the suggestion therefore is that it should be limited by leaving the other powers that the hon. Deputy Minister claims are necessary, but reserving to the Minister the necessary power to approve the sale of land before land can be disposed of. I think it is correct to say that we feel that the delegation of powers may be ill-advised in a case such as this, but it is obvious from what I have said and from what was said during the second reading that the area is limited, the number of transactions involved cannot be very great and the number of future transactions must even be smaller. By moving the amendment in this form, not asking for the deletion of the whole clause, I think the Opposition has met the hon. Deputy Minister more than halfway in respect of the case he has presented and I hope therefore that that portion of the amendment that I have now moved will be accepted.

I am afraid I cannot meet the Opposition as regards the amendment moved by them. I think I must refer them to what happened in the Senate. There the Opposition used as their spokesman one of their strong men, Senator Berman, who, as a member of the Cape Town City Council, has been directly concerned with these problems over the years, and he not only welcomed this Bill, but even thanked us for coming forward with it, because he realized what problems they have been faced with in the past. Sir, you will find this in the Senate Hansard of 10 February. Now I find it strange that the United Party disagrees with its own people. However, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) has put his case in regard to the question as to whether it is right that certain rights (and in his view the right of sale is a limited one) should be delegated to an officer. If one looks at Section 10 of the original Act, which was quoted by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), one finds that 10 (1) (h) states explicitly—

1. (i) to sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber any land forming part of the Foreshore …

In other words, the original Act explicitly provides “with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine”. It is not an unlimited delegation that is made to an officer. It is a delegation that is made to an officer to do the work “subject to the approval of the Minister and to such conditions as he may determine”. Now I want to put the following ridiculous position to you: If the Minister himself had to hold a conference with the Trust Bank in order to conduct the negotiations in regard to the land to be obtained by them, what would the position then be? It would create an impossible state of affairs. Every day the Minister is formulating policy and laying down conditions in regard to the various aspects of his activities and then telling officials, in this case a specific officer under a board, that the policy and the conditions have to be complied with. I want to add that I am glad that the hon. members are so concerned about the Foreshore, because the hon. member said that it was a limited area; it is a limited area, and it is precisely because we realize the limitedness and the importance of this area that there is a Select Committee of both Houses to supervise its development. In the case of the approval I have now granted, for example, I have arranged for a complete model-plan of the new civic centre, together with the opera house to be built there, to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament by the Foreshore Board, and that the House of Assembly, through the Parliamentary Select Committee, will stipulate that a certain part of the land is not to be alienated, but must be reserved for parks that are to be established in future. I want to go further: The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is a former Auditor-General, and hon. members know that the activities of this Foreshore Board and of the officials who have to give effect to the decisions relating to the sale, alienation or letting of land, etc., are subject to annual inspection by the Auditor-General. He has to carry out an annual inspection in this regard, and the audit is laid upon the Table, and ever since the establishment of the Foreshore Board we have never had a certified audit, in other words, the House of Assembly has merely received the assurance that any action taken has only been in the best interests of South Africa. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says that the Minister cannot be called to account because the work is delegated and the House therefore cannot hold him responsible. This is not the position, because the officer only acts according to instructions given with the approval of, and subject to such conditions as may be determined by, the Minister, and furthermore, whatever is done by the officer as far as selling this land is concerned is set out in the audit report and the Minister can then be called to account in this House. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

I regret very deeply that the hon. Deputy Minister has adopted the attitude that he has. This amendment is a very advisable amendment and the case for it was put very clearly by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I cannot understand why the Minister should adopt the attitude he has adopted. Here is an asset which is a national asset. The development of that area is of the greatest importance not only to Cape Town, but this is the gateway to South Africa and of importance to the whole country. The hon. Minister has been at pains to show the ultimate responsibility of the Minister. He cannot escape from the fact that when he gives a power of sale to an official that power is carried out, even if it is carried out in accord with the general directions of the Minister. The power of sale is vested in the official and while the Minister can be criticized in this House, the official makes the decision. If queried the ready answer is that Parliament has seen fit to vest the power of sale in the hands of the official concerned, it would obviously be advisable in the interests of the official himself and, I submit, of the Minister that in respect of the sale the final say should rest in the Minister’s hands. The number of transactions involved would not be many. The Minister has referred to the case of an hotel which is to be built and the examination of the plans, etc. In matters of that sort naturally the Minister must be guided by his officials. I am sure the Minister would not want to sit down and study the plans in detail and read the specifications, but he will accept the report of his Department and possibly look at the plans just to see whether from the aesthetic point of view he approves of them. I strongly support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). I find it very difficult to understand why the Deputy Minister has adopted the attitude he has. He seemed almost aggrieved that such an amendment should have been moved, but the amendment is moved simply because it is felt that in the particular circumstances of this case the hon. the Minister should bear a direct responsibility to this House for the sale of land, and not responsibility for an official who has been empowered by this House to effect the sale. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his attitude and accept the amendment.

I share the views of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and deprecate the manner in which the Deputy Minister referred to what happened in the Senate, but as was explained in the second reading, by reason of the procedure whereby Bills can be initiated in the Other Place this House becomes a House of review and therefore obviously the Opposition has to review the position at this stage of proceedings. I hope the Minister will not labour that point unduly. But it is quite clear from the attitude of the Deputy Minister that he himself misconstrues the purpose and the effect of the clause he wants to insert in the law. He misconstrues this power of delegation. I relied on the very clause which the Deputy Minister quoted himself, but he has misconstrued the clause by saying that the approval of the Minister stands. That is not so. This new clause now delegates to an official of the Board—and I am now reading the section as it will read with this delegation—“the Board may with the approval of the officer to whom the powers have been delegated and subject to such conditions as that officer may determine, sell, let, hypothecate or otherwise encumber …” That is the extent of the delegation. The officer who is delegated now substitutes for the Minister both in the legislation and in practice, and he may deal with the matter without the matter coming to the notice of the Minister at all. We accept that there may be a certain amount of practice already established, but we say that there can never be established practice in regard to the power to sell. Selling land is a final act, and it is the one thing which we contend should still be the obligation of the Minister to attend to. The Deputy Minister also misconstrued the position by asking whether we expect the Minister to negotiate and look at plans, etc. Obviously we do not. The negotiations are done by members of the Board-—by officials of the Board in the first place, I presume, and then by members of the Board. When a concrete proposal is made, it comes to the Minister and he gives his approval before the sale is negotiated. But the Deputy Minister tries to suggest that there is a safeguard in the Select Committee. Parliament is not concerned with negotiations of this nature. That is why Parliament vests in the Minister the obligation and the duty to do these things. He also refers to the safeguard of the Auditor-General, but that is a financial safeguard. The Auditor-General is not concerned with the administration of the Board’s affairs; it is only concerned with the financial administration of the Board. He obviously does his work to the best of his ability and reports to Parliament, but he is not concerned with the administrative aspect, with what leads up to the sale of property for which money is received. I hope the Deputy Minister will review his attitude because I think he is inclined to look upon this as being an obstruction rather than an endeavour to set the position right. We cannot get away from the fact that we are concerned here with a public asset in which the State and the City Council are both concerned, and I think there is a duty on the Opposition to make quite certain that before any change is made in the law which affects public assets of that kind, the matter should be clearly ventilated and understood. I therefore hope that the Deputy Minister will now review the position and see it in that light.

I am afraid the two hon. members who have spoken are labouring under a serious misconception. I first want to refer them to the original Act once again, and I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that I do not hold it against the hon. members that they come along with these arguments. On the contrary, I welcome this interest. It shows me that they are as interested in the development of this city, which is the gateway to South Africa. In addition I want to say to the hon. members that I take it that as a result of the new system in terms of which legislation may be initiated in the Senate, this House can also be a House of Review, and that I will therefore not burden them with what was said in the Senate. I only mentioned it because I wanted to show how someone who is acquainted with the work being done at the moment and who knows what problems they have encountered welcomed the Bill. If we look at Section 8, the section now being amended here, we find that it provides that the clerical and administrative work connected with the functions of the Board shall be performed at its expense and under its control by officers in the Public Service to be seconded to the service of the Board. In other words, here we have public servants who have to do the work of the Board. If we now look at Section 10—and this is where the hon. members make their mistake—we see that it provides very explicitly that the objects of the Board shall be to control, manage and develop the Foreshore and to dispose of the land included therein, and to that end the board shall have power to do certain things, and (h) confers upon the Board the power with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine to sell, let, etc., any land forming part of the Foreshore. In other words, in 1950 this House authorized the Foreshore Board to sell land, to let it, and so forth, and seconded public servants to the Foreshore Board to do the work for it. The Board may only do these things with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine. All we now ask is that where the Board may do these things subject to the approval of the Minister, there should be an executive official in this Foreshore Board who may do the work and sign the contracts on their behalf. Up to now these things have been done by these public servants, but now the law advisers have found that the right delegated to the Board by the Minister to do these things has not been delegated to an officer by this Act; and all that is now being asked is that we must stipulate in the Act what juristic person is to exercise the rights and powers which have already been conferred upon the Foreshore Board by the House of Assembly; and the juristic person who is to exercise these rights and powers is this public servant we have seconded to them to do the work. That is all we are asking. There is no new principle involved, and the Minister is not being relieved of any responsibility. All that is being done, is that executive authority that has already been granted to the Foreshore Board is being conferred upon a juristic person who has to do the work. Where this is the position, I cannot see how the hon. members can put forward a proposition that will make it quite impossible to carry out the functions of the Foreshore Board and that will also invalidate the work done by the Foreshore Board since that time. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Deputy Minister still misconstrues the very purpose of this delegation. The delegation is a wide one. The Minister may delegate any of the powers conferred on him by Section 10. Sir, I am limited in regard to the number of times I can speak and therefore I now have to come to the second portion of my amendment which I had hoped I would not have to proceed with. Had the Deputy Minister seen fit to accept this amendment, it would have reduced the Opposition’s concern about the matter considerably, but in the light of the Deputy Minister’s attitude I have no other alternative but also to move now—

I am coming to that portion of the principle which I said dealt with the condonation of the sins of omission of the Minister and the neglect of his obligations under this Act, and also his sins of commission by leaving it to an officer of the Board to exercise or assume those objections. If there has to be condonation of what was done bona fide by a member of the Board’s staff, who is also an officer of the Public Service, then this side of the House would obviously not object to such condonation if a good case was made out. But before you can agree to condonation of something, you must know what you are condoning, and we are left in this position that neither this House nor, it seems to me, the Deputy Minister, knows what we are condoning. I think it is fair to say that the Minister and the draftsman here have adopted the lazy way of getting parliamentary condonation for the irregularities. We are now simply asked to pretend by a legal fiction that what was done by the officials, possibly in good faith, was done by them in terms of the law; whereas the Minister in the second reading admitted that what had been done was irregular. I think his words were that he wanted to condone “die vorige handelinge van die bestuur wat nie wettig is nie”. So we are now asked to condone something which was illegally done. I think the House must know in detail, or certainly in substance, what the nature of the condonation is that Parliament must now give. We cannot simply legislate blindly, as we are asked to do here. We cannot simply give a blank cheque. As I indicated before, the area is a limited one and the number of transactions must be limited, and it behoves the Deputy Minister to come to this House with the fullest details of what it is “wat nie wettig is nie”. We can assure him that if anything has to be put right that was done in good faith, we will accept it in the same spirit, but surely we are entitled to know. I think we have reached the stage in this debate where the hon. the Deputy Minister should withdraw the Bill because we are now obviously dealing with something in a slapdash fashion. We are dealing with the matter in a slapdash fashion and we are trying by a legal fiction to say that something which was irregularly done was done correctly. I think there is an obligation on the Deputy Minister to withdraw the Bill and to re-introduce it in the light of the arguments advanced from this side of the House, and then when he comes to ask for condonation to do so not in the lazy way but in a forthright way by setting out what the various Acts are which were done irregularly.

I should like to make an appeal to the Minister. We on this side strongly hold the view that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) should be accepted. I do not believe for a moment that it will have the serious effect on the administration which the Minister thinks it will have. The Minister will only have to perform one administrative act. He will have to sign his name in respect of sales. We do not think that is an unreasonable request. In all other respects we accept that delegation is essential. That is clear from the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). It is not necessary to repeat it. We have made our point, that the sale of land is a final act which must be confirmed and we want it to be confirmed by the Minister. In respect of future sales, we would like the Minister to have a direct responsibility. I asked the Minister to consider seriously, if he will not accept these amendments now, that he should move to report progress so as to give him an opportunity of considering it further. We do not want to delay the matter, but it is absolutely essential that the Minister should accept a direct responsibility. I hope he will accept it and not be in a position where, if there is a query in this House, something with which we disagree, we can face the Minister man to man, because we do not want to hold officials responsible. I hope the Minister will not run away from that. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment he should move to report progress so as to give it further consideration.

I shall immediately deal with the second part of the amendment as well. I want to refer the hon. members back to my second-reading speech, in which I stated very explicitly that the words “with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine” were inserted in the 1950 Act with the intention of granting the Minister control over the general conditions of purchase or sale, and that the rest of the particular transaction would be handled by the Board on its own—this Board that already has this power in terms of the Act.

You are reading it incorrectly.

That is how it was passed in 1950, and the 1950 Act delegated these rights to the Board. Now I want to say this to hon. members: From time to time the Minister of Lands has also agreed to amendments to the general conditions and authorized the managers in office to act on his behalf in approving of the Board’s decisions in regard to land transactions. Let us try to take a few examples. Let us assume the Minister has approved the purchase of the Sanlam or the Broadway building and has delegated an official to conclude the transaction, and then the law advisers come along and say that because the powers that have been delegated to the Board are not also delegated by the Act to a juristic person who has to do the work on behalf of the Board the position is not quite legal, or there is some doubt as to its legality, surely it is then the duty of this Board to remedy the position, and to do so with retrospective effect. I repeat that no new principle is being introduced into the Act. The Minister is not being relieved of any responsibilities and no new responsibilities are being imposed on any official. All that is being done here is that the powers that were delegated in the 1950 Act are being conferred upon a juristic person on the Board who has to deal with any particular matter. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments in the Bill are mainly intended to adapt the principal Act to changed circumstances and developments which have been experienced in the dairy industry in recent times. Certain of the proposed amendments are being made with a view to greater clarity when it comes to the practical application of the Act.

Changes in manufacturing methods have made it necessary to tighten up the definition of certain dairy products in Clause 1 in order to conform to existing conditions and practices. In terms of the present definition of “cheese”, it is the product obtained by the draining of coagulated milk, skim milk or partly skimmed milk, which is then matured for more than ten days. This definition, however, is no longer comprehensive enough in view of the fact that new types of cheese such as “Drakensberg” are made by also adding cream to the milk. The requirement that the product should be matured for more than ten days is intended to draw a distinction between ordinary cheese and soft cheese like cream cheese and cottage cheese. In order to remedy the definition it is now intended to define “cheese” as the product obtained by the draining of coagulated milk, cream, skim milk or a mixture of two or more of these products, but with the exclusion of soft cheese which is normally used in a fresh condition.

“Process butter” is a product which years ago was manufactured from farm butter which was bought on the markets and was then reprocessed in premises which had to be registered for that purpose. This product is no longer being manufactured and the definitions of “process butter” and “process butter factory”, and the reference thereto in the Act, are being deleted.

“Process cheese” is presently being defined as the product obtained by the milling, mixing or pasteurization of one or more types, grades or qualities of cheese with or without the addition of an emulsifying agent, a harmless colouring matter or any food product. This definition is defective because it says “mixing or pasteurization” instead of “mixing and pasteurization”.

Provision is also being made for the definition of “cheese spread”, which is the same product as process cheese and is described as the product obtained by melting and emulsifying into a homogeneous plastic mass quantities of one or more varieties of cheese with or without the addition of spices, herbs, food products, emulsifying agents, flavouring substances or an approved preservative. This definition is technically more correct in respect of process cheese and cheese spread. Consequential to these proposed amendments, the definitions of “process cheese factory” and “dairy products” are also being amended to include “cheese spread”.

The amendment to the definition of “creamery” will not bring about any change in the existing position. It simply results from the proposed amendment of Section 3 of the Act.

Registration of Factory Premises (Clause 2):

In terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act, premises used for the manufacture of dairy products must be registered by my Department. Sub-section (2) however provides that such premises, with the exception of cheese factories, need not be registered unless the milk, cream or skim milk used there is obtained or purchased from somebody else, or unless the owner of the premises is a cooperative, company, partnership or any other association of two or more persons. No farmers as such manufacture dairy products in the factories mentioned in sub-section (1) from milk or cream produced by themselves, except for cheese and butter. In so far as butter is concerned, the definition of “creamery” has been amended, as I have already said, so that premises in which the owner makes butter from cream obtained exclusively from his own cows, with the exception of co-operatives or companies, is not a creamery for the purposes of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (2) are therefore unnecessary and can therefore be deleted.

In regard to cheese, the position will also remain unchanged in view of the fact that no change is being made in connection with farm cheese factories and a cheese factory (which does not include a farm cheese factory) in any case has to be registered.

The Act requires that no premises may be registered as a cheese factory and that no registration may be renewed unless at least one person is employed in a full-time capacity in that factory and who is in possession of a certificate of proficiency in cheesemaking. Provision is now being made that the Minister may grant exemptions from the proviso in the case of a cheese factory where no cheddar cheese, gouda cheese or any other cheese closely related to those are manufactured.

The output of the factories concerned with this is small in relation to that of ordinary cheese factories and does not justify the fulltime employment of a qualified cheesemaker. These factories are registered by the Dairy Board only for the making of specific types of special cheese and the owners concentrate on those types only.

Other than in the case of cheese factories, there is at present no provision in the Act that creameries should employ persons who are qualified butter-makers. It is now intended to make provision that the premises of a creamery may not be registered, or an existing registration renewed, unless at least one person is employed full-time in that factory who holds a certificate of proficiency in butter-making. This provision is being made at the request of the Dairy Produce Manufacturers Association and the National Union of Dairy Industry Employees. This can only redound to the benefit of the dairy industry. In order to allow sufficient time to enable factories to comply with this requirement, it is further being proposed that this new provision will only come into effect on 1 July 1966. In other words, there will be enough time for all existing creameries and prospective creameries to comply with these requirements of the Act.

In terms of Section 10 (3) of the Act, the names of persons appointed by the Minister as analysts, bacteriological experts and inspectors must be published in the Government Gazette and certificates proving such appointments must be issued to the persons concerned. The publication of the names of these persons in the Government Gazette does not serve any practical purpose. Nor does a similar requirement exist in the case of produce inspectors appointed in terms of the Marketing Act of 1937, the Export of Fruit Act of 1957 and the Agricultural Products Export Act of 1959. It is therefore proposed that the provision in regard to the publication of the names in the Government Gazette be deleted and that it will suffice for certificates to be issued to these persons.

There is at present provision in the Act that an inspector may take samples of dairy products or ingredients used in that connection with the object of testing them or having them tested. Samples of certain dairy products are at present being taken to be graded at a central point, and in order to dispel any uncertainty which may exist in this regard provision is being made in the Bill for the taking of samples also for the purpose of grading or analysis.

In Section 11 (6) of the principal Act provision is made that an appeal may be lodged with the Secretary of the Department or a senior official authorized by him, in the prescribed way against the decision of an inspector. The Secretary for such official must decide the appeal. Section 29 (1) (v), however, provides that regulations may be issued in regard to the period in which and the way in which an appeal may be noted; the security to be given in connection with such an appeal; the way in which this security should be dealt with, and the person or persons by whom the appeal has to be decided.

In practice an appeal board is constituted to decide such an appeal in terms of the regulations issued. With a view to greater clarity and in order to make the matter conform to existing practice, it is proposed to amend Section 11 (6) of the principal Act in such a way that provision is made for appeals to be noted in the prescribed manner and that the decision of the person or persons deciding the appeal will be final and conclusive. The present provision that appeals should be lodged with the Secretary of the Department or a senior official and should be decided by him is therefore deleted. In order to remedy the position further, Section 29 (1) (v) is being amended to provide that regulations may be issued prescribing the period and the manner in which an appeal should be noted; the deposit which has to be paid and the circumstances under which that deposit or part of it may be repaid; and the appointment of the person or persons by whom the appeal must be decided. Therefore no real change is being brought about by this amendment and it is being done merely with a view to greater clarity in the practical application of the Act.

Section 16 (1) (f) of the principal Act prohibits the sale of any dairy products—except margarine—containing a preservative. In terms of the regulations issued under the Foodstuffs, Medicine and Disinfectants Act, process cheese and cheese spread may also contain approved preservatives. In order to remove this anomaly, it is therefore intended to exclude from this prohibition also process cheese and cheese spread, apart from margarine.

Section 18 of the principal Act provides that persons employed to test milk or cream or to grade cream must be in possession of a certificate of proficiency in order to be able to do the work. The National Industrial Council for the Dairy Industry has requested that provision should also be made in the Act that persons employed in the grading of milk should be in possession of a certificate of proficiency in milk grading. This request is also supported by the S.A. Cheesemakers’ Union, which represents employees, and the Dairy Factories Employers’ Organization, which represents the employers. At present industrial milk is not yet being purchased according to grade, but these certificates will serve as encouragement for employees to qualify themselves better.

Provision is also being made in the Bill for the issue of certificates of proficiency in milk grading and butter-making and for the withdrawal of such certificates under particular circumstances.

A further amendment is also envisaged in regard to the persons who have to test applicants for certificates in cheese and butter making, so that they need not necessarily be inspectors, but that other persons with the necessary knowledge can also be appointed for this purpose. The last-mentioned provision will in practice facilitate the implementation of the provision with regard to the setting of examinations for certificates in cheese and butter making.

The other amendments contained in the Bill are simply consequential amendments flowing from the amendments I have dealt with here.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the bodies I have already mentioned, the Dairy Industry Supervisory Board has also been consulted, and the proposed amendments are approved of by that Board. These amendments are only in the interest of the dairy industry and will have the result that the Dairy Industry Act, 1961, and the regulations issued in terms of it, will be able to be applied with greater efficacy and clarity. I move.

Circumstances have necessitated the amendment of the Dairy Industry Act, and this side of the House gladly approves of the amendments proposed here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. There are a few aspects, however, that we want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to take into review, and in connection with which we feel that further amendments should have been brought about. I should like to deal with those proposed amendments. Although provision has been made for inspection and for everything else relating to the making of cheese and butter and the by-products of milk, the supplier of fresh milk, who supplies a product which is extremely susceptible to germs and which is consumed by practically every person in our country and which is one of the most difficult products to control, may nevertheless supply this product to the consumer under the most unhygienic conditions. Where a dairy is registered it is subject to inspection. That inspection is done periodically, but where the suppliers of fresh milk are not registered producers but they nevertheless sell milk or cause it to be sold, it is possible for them to supply milk to the public under the most unhygienic circumstances. In many cases the premises which are used by small dairies are not subject to inspection. There are numerous small dairies of this kind, particularly in the smaller centres, where it is not possible to inspect the premises because there is simply no health inspector. I should like to know whether the necessary control cannot be exercised by means of more stringent regulations. Sir, then I want to put forward a plea for the supply of quality milk to the consumer. I speak subject to correction but I think the regulations provide that the milk must have a butterfat content of 3.2 per cent. We know, however, that the butterfat content of milk may vary between less and 3 per cent and as much as 6 per cent or more, and that people will not be disposed to sell milk with a butterfat content of 6 per cent to the consumer where it is possible for them to keep cows yielding milk with a butterfat content of 3 per cent. In terms of the regulations, a supplier is not allowed to supply milk with a butterfat content of less than 3.2 per cent, but milk cannot always be inspected to determine its butterfat content. Then there is another amendment which relates to Clause 3 (a) (4). This clause provides that after 30 June 1966 no premises shall be registered as a creamery and that no certificate of registration will be renewed unless there is a competent person employed full-time in such factory who is the holder of a certificate of proficiency in butter-making referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 18. We want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we do not feel happy about this particular clause. We are dealing here with an industry which is already struggling and which is not very popular with our young people; we find it difficult to induce people to enter this industry. We do everything in our power in our agricultural schools and agricultural colleges to attract young farmers to the dairy industry, but because of the depressed state of the industry at the present time, there is a great shortage of manpower in this industry, greater than in any other industry. Where a creamery is faced with the problem that it still has no inspector, or that it had an inspector and lost his services, or that after having been registered it was unable to employ an inspector with the result that its certificate was cancelled, we want to ask the Minister whether he will not be prepared in the Committee Stage to accept an amendment in this connection which will provide that such a creamery, with the permission of the Minister, may carry on until such time as it is able to engage an inspector.

For the rest, Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is prepared to give its support to this Bill.

I think it is high time that this legislation was placed on the Statute Book. Sir, we naturally have our difficulties in connection with exports and in connection with domestic manufacture, but when the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) talks about a butterfat content of less than 3 per cent he surely ought to know that no milk with a butterfat content of less than 3 per cent may be sold in any town or any place in South Africa. Even in the smallest towns there are regulations forbidding it. We cannot, of course, lay down that producers must keep cows which produce milk with a butterfat content of only 3 per cent or of 5 per cent: the general principle is to place our dairy industry on a sound basis, and I do not think that there is a single provision in this Bill to which there can be the slightest objection. I do not think it is necessary for the Opposition to put forward any amendments.

Those of us who have watched the dairy industry through its various stages of development are extremely interested in these additional amendments proposed here.

We are interested particularly after having reviewed the position after the 1961 amendment came into operation. We are pleased to be able to tell the Minister that some good results were produced by those amendments. The Minister is now seeking further powers under this Bill. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what is perhaps the nasty side of the dairy industry and I want to warn him against the acceptance of any irresponsible recommendations to his Department to juggle with prices, as was done some two, three or four years ago. I want to assure him that the industry is suffering to-day as a result of that irresponsibility. The industry was thrown into chaos, and I want to assure the Minister that it is going to take many years before the industry recovers and regains the healthy state in which it was at that time. Sir, the dairy industry wants fair remuneration for its labour and it wants long-term stability. This country will then be able to produce all the butterfat that is needed for its own requirements.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister reads the Bill he will find that there is ample opportunity given for it. However, I want to say that the Minister is dealing here with one of our primary agricultural products, which I suppose is also the most delicate, a product which has to be dealt with by men who depend on a sensitive sense of taste for the grading of either milk, butter or cheese. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see to it that adequate provision is made for the training of these men so that they can carry out these operations.

There are just a few items that I want to say something about. I want to refer here to something which has been recommended in previous years and that is in regard to the tidying up of the definition. Sir, why cannot a butter factory be called a “butter factory” instead of a “creamery”? There are such things as creameries, and I did think that in tidying up the Act, butter factory would have been clearly defined.

The other item that I want to deal with is in Clause 2. I do not know whether I understood the Minister correctly or not and I should like him to clarify this point. It becomes necessary from time to time for the various butter factories to reprocess or rework their butter, and I sincerely hope that that is not going to be regarded as butter processing under this Act. When we come to Clause 9 I would like the hon. the Minister to deal more seriously with it than has been indicated by hon. members on the other side. The proposed new sub-section (1), in paragraph (a), says—

One can understand what that is meant to mean, but will the Minister not tidy that up at a later stage and put the following in its place: “has, during the period of two years immediately preceding such inquiry, not been engaged in the grading or testing of milk …”

I think if the terminology is taken out it would help a great deal to achieve the objects of this measure. Sir, for the rest I sincerely hope that the Minister is going to make use of the powers for which he is asking here because it is high time the dairy industry in this country was tuned up and cleaned up and that a stop was put to the juggling that is taking place between creameries whereby they are using testing and grading for the purpose of attracting business. There has been some measure of improvement but we sincerely hope that the Minister will take the necessary steps to put a stop to this practice at an early date.

I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for supporting and welcoming this Bill. Where the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) asked for additional protection for fresh milk itself and where this Bill more particularly grants protection to cheese and butter, I want to point out that no municipality, no authority, allows unhygienic milk to be sold in its area. I also want to tell the hon. member that the 3.6 per cent butterfat test is not the only test. There is an additional test as well; the milk must contain at least 8 per cent of non-fatty ingredients before it is allowed to be sold. This is to ensure that no water is added to the milk.

The hon. member for East London (City) also asked that, in view of the manpower shortage, the date specified in this Bill, i.e. 1 July 1966 as the date by which a butter maker has to be a trained, qualified person, should not be regarded as a law of the Medes and Persians. Factories have to apply for permits every year and the Minister will, of course, use his discretion where any particular factory has lost the services of such a trained person. Hon. members must bear in mind, however, that the qualified men referred to here are not necessarily persons who have obtained a degree at a university or at one of our agricultural schools. We ourselves are prepared to help to train these people and, if they can pass our test, we are prepared to accept and approve for this purpose persons who have been trained at existing cheese and butter factories.

Where the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) has warned against irresponsible price determination I want to point out that, as it happens, that has nothing to do with this Bill. I think he has made out a case, however, and we shall most certainly take this into account. Where the hon. member spoke about the training of staff and asked that we should help to train people, he may rest assured that we will make use of the services of existing butter makers and cheese-makers if they can pass our test. We will then regard them as trained persons and grant the further assistance required in this connection.

Then the hon. member asked that where a factory has to reprocess its own butter it should not fall under the provisions of these measures. I said very explicitly that one previously had the position that farm butter was melted down and then processed. Hon. members know that the Indian population, for example, used enormous quantities of this processed butter. The hon. member need have no fear that we shall take action against these factories.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Sir, this is the bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have Tabled an explanatory memorandum from which hon. members have been able to get the details of the Bill. The major proposals before the House concern firstly the wage figure above which workers are excluded from the unemployment insurance fund, and secondly, the position of seasonal workers. While I intend referring briefly to all the amendments in the Bill, I propose going into some detail as far as the two more important proposals are concerned.

Hon. members will recollect that the maximum earnings in respect of which contributions were payable to the Fund, were increased in 1957 from R 1,500 per annum, exclusive of cost-of-living allowance, to R2,500 per annum inclusive of cost-of-living allowance. The allowance on R 1,500 was estimated to be R580 at that time, and the figure of R2,500 therefore exceeded the then existing ceiling of R 1,500 plus the cost-of-living allowance by R420. For some time the Unemployment Insurance Board has had under consideration the question of a further adjustment to the ceiling as laid down in 1957. The Trade Union Councils’ representatives on the board have suggested that the ceiling be raised to R3,120 per annum. The Trade Union Council was initially supported by the Koördinerende Raad van Suid-Afrikaanse Vakverenigings. It was then argued that a ceiling of R3,120 would bring the Act into line with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. But I would like to point out that the two Acts are really not compatible in this respect: Earnings, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, have always included cost-of-living allowances, payment for overtime and other special remuneration of a constant character whereas earnings, in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, did not originally include either cost-of living allowances or payment for overtime. Cost-of-living allowances have been included as from 1 April 1957 but overtime does still not form part of earnings. It follows, therefore, that to some extent a higher figure is necessary under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There is the additional factor that whilst workers earning up to R3,120 per annum are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act compensation under the Act is calculated only on earnings up to R120 per month. That is, R 1,440 per annum according to Section 39 (2) of that Act. Similarly earnings in excess of R 1,440 per annum are disregarded for assessment purposes. After the board had given due consideration to all the relevant factors they decided, by a majority vote, to recommend that the ceiling be raised to R2,860. All the employers’ representatives and four trade union representatives on the board voted in favour of this figure. It was only opposed by the two representatives of the Trade Union Council. I am, however, pleased to say that during October 1964 the Secretary of the Trade Union Council advised the Unemployment Insurance Commissioner as follows—

I now come to the question of seasonal employment which is dealt with in Clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill. At present a “seasonal worker” is defined in the Act as a person who is employed in an industry on work which, by reason of the seasonal variation in the supply of the raw material, is ordinarily available to such person for a continuous period of not more than eight months in any one year. In many districts in the Western Province the fruit and vegetable canning industry and the fruit-drying and packing industry, which are seasonal industries, have been excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Fund in terms of Section 2 (5) of the Act because employers are unable, at the beginning of the season, to say which employees will be employed for more and which for less than eight months. From time to time the Fruit and Canning Workers’ Union have made representations requesting that steps be taken to enable its members, most of whom are seasonal workers, to be admitted as contributors to the fund. However, the Unemployment Insurance Board is of the opinion that seasonal workers should, for practical reasons, continue to be excluded from the Act. But it has recommended that all the administrative, clerical, technical, office, sales and maintenance staff in seasonal industries be now admitted to the fund, as well as those employees who, after having been employed as seasonal workers, remain in the employment of the same employer for a further period, i.e. after the eight months. In order to give effect to the board’s recommendation it is now proposed to insert a new section in the Act which will provide for seasonal employment, and to define “seasonal worker” and “seasonal business” on the lines set out in Clause 1 of the Bill.

It is also proposed to substitute a new definition for the definition of “earnings” in the present Section 2bis of the Act. As this expression is at present defined it excludes, inter alia, special remuneration which is not defined. As hon. members know there is a great variety of types of remuneration to-day, some of which are earnings as contemplated by the Act and others which are not earnings. Anomalies have also arisen from differing practices in various industries in arriving at what constitutes basic earnings. It is now proposed to provide specifically that any additional earnings based on the quantity or the output of work done, any special bonus, special payment or allowance, shall not be regarded as earnings unless the Minister, after consultation with the Board, determines otherwise in terms of Clause 3 of the Bill.

Hon. members will remember that in the course of the debate on the Labour Vote during the 1963 Session the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) requested that consideration be given to the granting of relief to women employed as radiographers because such contributors are prevented from continuing their work in the early stages of pregnancy and are consequently unable to qualify for maternity benefits. I then undertook to give this matter consideration and the amendment now proposed in Clause 10 (d) is designed to rectify the matter. The board will now be able to authorize the payment of benefits to such contributors who are obliged to relinquish their work much earlier than in the case of other pregnant women.

During last session the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked me to review the 1962 amendments to the Act relating to the payment of ordinary benefits and illness allowances on the ground that the new requirements had given rise to undue hardship in a number of cases. I stated then that the board would be requested to go into the matter and to submit a report to me. At a recent meeting the board gave special consideration to the question as to whether the restrictions introduced in 1962 should be relaxed. The board 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 to contributors who were still unemployed after having received benefits for 26 weeks. Such benefits are granted by the board for periods up to an additional 26 weeks subject to the same qualifying periods as for the initial payment. The board does not consider it reasonable to expect the fund to provide relief for a continuous period in excess of 52 weeks. In all the circumstances the board agree that the 1962 amendments should not be relaxed, but the board recommended that Section 39 (3) be re-drafted in order to clarify and simplify the procedure for granting benefits for further periods and thus remove hardships which may arise in certain circumstances. In terms of the amendment now proposed in Clause 10 (a) a special form of application will be prescribed and such application will be submitted direct to the board and no longer via the Unemployment Benefit Committee. In other words, the application will go direct to the board which has a discretion as hon. members know.

It is trusted that the new procedure will remove the delays which have occurred in handling these cases in the past.

It is also proposed to amend Section 32 of the Act in order to provide for a period of seven years’ prescription in regard to the payment of contributions to the fund and the refund to employers of amounts paid by them in error. No period of prescription is provided for at present and the position is beginning to create administrative difficulties, especially in so far as storage facilities are concerned. The amendment is designed to avoid the necessity for increasing the accommodation, both for additional staff and for records. I may mention that the period of seven years was agreed upon after consultation with the Controller and Auditor General. It is estimated that this amendment will result in an annual loss to the fund of approximately R2,000 but it is anticipated that the annual savings in storage space, fittings and staff will exceed this amount.

The remaining amendments are either consequential on the proposals I have outlined or are designed to remove existing anomalies in the administration of the Act or they are purely of a textual nature.

In 1962 we on this side of the House strongly opposed the amendments that were moved to the principal Act by the hon. the Minister. On that occasion I think the hon. Minister was introducing his first piece of legislation in this House and it was a Bill which brought about a narrowing down of the then existing Unemployment Insurance Act. We now find that this Bill extends the scope of that Act and it is for that reason that we on this side of the House support it. The main issues involved in this Bill show that the extension of the scope of the Act will to a certain extent improve the present position.

I intend to deal with the various points raised by the hon. the Minister. During the Committee Stage we shall deal with other matters and seek further information. The first matter deals with the raising of the ceiling. I think this is perhaps one of the most important aspects of this Bill. The hon. the Minister did indicate that the Trade Union Council representatives on the board wished to have the ceiling raised to an amount equivalent to the amount provided for in the Schedule to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, i.e. R3,120 per annum. The Minister then indicated that the board had agreed on an increase of R360 per annum, in other words, on an increase of the ceiling from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum. However, the hon. the Minister did not indicate as to how this figure was arrived at. I think we would appreciate it if, when the hon. Minister replies, he would give us some indication as to the basis on which that ceiling was fixed. I might also add that we on this side of the House, of course, welcome in principle this step that has been taken in raising the ceiling of the figure as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned.

When we look at Clause 2 which deals with this particular aspect we find that the ceiling has been increased due to various factors mentioned by the Minister and mentioned in the White Paper. The object is to keep pace with increases in wages and salaries and to ensure that the Act continues to keep covered that class of employee who requires such cover as provided for in the main principle of the Act. The position is that for those, other than Bantu, this figure has been increased from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum. But the figure in regard to the Bantu has remained the same and merely provides for the conversion of that amount from £ to R. In other words, there has been no increase in the case of Bantu. The Bill merely provides that instead of it being £273 per annum the ceiling will be R546 per annum. If the same reasons apply in regard to workers other than Bantu workers, i.e. increases in salaries and wages, why is it that the same conditions have not been applied in regard to the Bantu workers? We know that steps have been taken by the Government themselves, by commerce and industry and the private sector, to increase the wages of the Bantu. I consequently find it difficult to understand the reason why this particular figure has remained the same in respect of Bantu workers. The general trend to give sufficient coverage to those persons who require coverage of this nature is one which is welcomed on this side of the House. It is felt that the step in raising the ceiling is one that will be generally welcomed in all spheres. We must also bear in mind the importance of the amendments to the principal Act. The raising of the ceiling is a matter which has come about due to the necessity of adjusting the present financial and economic position of those employees who have in the past enjoyed coverage of this Act and intend to remain members of the fund.

Increasing numbers are involved. The latest report of the Secretary of the Department of Labour which was tabled in this House at the beginning of the Session gives various items of interest as far as the fund is concerned. As far as the present fund is concerned it gives the number of employers. It shows that from 1962 to 1963 the number of employers have increased by 3,352 so that 65,663 employers are involved. The number of employees who paid contributions increased by some 87,000 during that year to approximately 952,000. That was for 1963 and to-day possibly over 1,000,000 employees are involved, i.e. contributors to this fund. I mention this fact because I am trying to assess the effects of increasing the scope of the fund on the financial position of the fund. We are making provision for extending the scope, a step which is naturally welcomed. However, I was hoping that the hon. the Minister would give some indication as to what the financial effect would be on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It extends the number of persons under Group XII who pay contributions to the fund. When you look at the latest available figure you find that Group XII represents something like 28.3 per cent of the total number of contributors and they make the greatest contributions to the fund. By raising the ceiling we will be admitting more contributors who are in Group XII. in other words, contributors who pay the highest contributions. I believe what the effect on the financial position of the fund will be is of considerable importance. We find that the 1962 amendments, which were opposed by this side of the House as I have mentioned before, resulted in a considerable decrease in the benefits paid in terms of the Act. The latest report on the position of the fund shows that in respect of ordinary benefits an amount of R9,328,000 were paid in 1962 and an amount of R4,958,000 in 1963. That means a decrease of R4,370,000. As far as illness allowances are concerned there was also a decrease in the amount of benefits paid from R3,307,960 in 1962 to R2,641,900 in 1963. Similarly there was a decrease in the maternity benefits that were paid. The overall picture therefore shows that in 1962 the income was approximately R11,500,000 and that in 1963 the income had increased to R 12,500,000 but in 1962 the expenditure was R 17,000,000 and in 1963 it had dropped to nearly R12,000,000. i.e. a decrease of R5,000,000 The accumulated funds stood at R 120,000,000 in 1963. Earlier in the Session I asked the hon. the Minister for information in regard to the 1964 position. His reply indicated that from 1 January 1964 till end of December. 1964 an amount of R13,441,000 had come into the fund and that benefits to an amount of R9,736,000 had been paid out. This means that there was a difference between the amount received and the benefits paid of R3,705,000. We can safely assume, therefore, that the accumulated funds standing to the credit of this fund are in excess of R 120,000,000.

In view of these various factors I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give us some indication as to what the financial effect would be on the present position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The other point which I think is important and a matter which should be raised and is linked with the financial position of the fund is the decrease in the benefits that have been paid. These decreases are referred to in the report that has been tabled and which I have mentioned earlier on. In the case of every decrease reference is made to the 1962 amendments. I particularly mention this because the benefits which are paid are most important as far as this Bill is concerned.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Board had made certain recommendations and that they felt it was perhaps not wise to repeal the 1962 amendments and that they wished to retain the principles as provided for in Section 39 (3) of the principal Act. We consequently merely have here a tidying up of Section 39 (3) of the Act, as amended in 1962. In regard to this particular aspect of the extended benefits I am rather surprised to learn that the Board —I don’t know whether the board was unanimous in its decision—decided that the main principle underlying the 1962 amendments and which limited the extent to which benefits could be paid, maternity benefits, illness allowances and ordinary benefits, should be maintained and not amended, repealed or withdrawn. I know that during 1964 the Trade Union Council of South Africa made strong representations on 16 January to the hon. the Minister in regard to the adverse effect of those 1962 amendments. They called upon the Minister to carry out an immediate investigation and to see what could be done to alleviate the position. The approach that was made on 16 January 1964 certainly indicates that the Trade Union Council of South Africa remains strongly opposed to those restrictions that were placed on the Statute Book in 1962.

Clause 10 of the Bill before the House provides—and it is hoped that it will have that effect—for ways and means of reducing the delays that are often experienced by persons who find it necessary to apply for extended benefits. During the course of last year as the hon. the Minister will remember the hon. members for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and myself made representations to the Minister and drew his attention to the fact that tremendous hardships had been experienced by certain persons who had contributed towards the fund for many years and then found that they were strictly limited to benefits for the initial 26 weeks only. The Minister, of course, referred to the section of the principal Act, as amended, Section 39 (3) which empowered the Unemployment Insurance Board to extend those benefits under certain circumstances. Clause 10 as proposed in this Bill to a certain extent appears to reduce the time lag that will eventuate if the matter has to go, first of all. to the Unemployment Benefit Committee and then to the Unemployment Insurance Board before a decision is made in respect of extended benefits. By by-passing the Unemployment Benefit Committee it is now hoped that these matters will be dealt with more expeditiously. Clause 10 amends Section 39 (3) which is perhaps the most important section of the principal Act. It deals with persons who are faced with extreme difficulties; they require immediate assistance. They feel they have a certain extent of security in that if they are no longer in employment they will be able to get something from the fund. As I read this particular clause, apart from the fact of reducing the time lag by the application going straight to the board rather than via the Unemployment Benefit Committee, the main principle remains exactly the same. The experience I have had has shown that very few of these cases have received extended benefits in terms of the provisions of the Act. Section 39 (3) of the Act reads—

If one refers to the provisions of paragraph (m) of sub-section (1) of Section 40, we find that this is the particular provision which states that no contributor shall receive benefits, unless he has been employed as a contributor for a period of 13 weeks or has been in employment for 13 weeks, during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced, which in most cases is taken as the date of application. Consequently the position is that a person finds that he is faced with this extreme difficulty (it is often those who make application for the extension of benefits in terms of illness allowances) that he is unable to find further employment and therefore is disqualified from drawing any further benefits, and who then has to make application to the board to receive those extended benefits. So in terms of this clause it merely continues to state that those contributors could receive as a maximum an additional 26 weeks’ benefits, in other words, a maximum of 52 weeks. At the end of the 52 weeks period, that is at the end of one year, unless that contributor is able to find employment for at least 13 weeks, or able to become a contributor for another period of 13 weeks, it means that he will not be able to receive any further benefits, either ordinary benefits or in terms of this clause further extended benefits. Therefore he is limited in the same manner in which he was limited in terms of the 1962 amendments. It is in this particular regard that I feel that perhaps something further could have been done to alleviate the plight of many of those people who are genuine work-seekers but who find it impossible to obtain employment perhaps in the field in which they are qualified. I refer particularly to those persons who receive illness allowances.

As far as the board’s decisions are concerned for extended benefits, if we look at the report of the fund, it shows that illness allowances are perhaps the greatest cause of difficulty where a person requires extended benefits. Under the ordinary benefits it is stated that the board received 26 applications for payment in excess of 26 weeks and 13 of those applications (50 per cent) were approved of. As far as illness benefits are concerned, a greater number of applications were received, i.e. 83 applications of which 56 were granted.

I believe this is a very important aspect of the fund. These contributors who make their contributions over a large number of years, who then become ill and are unable to continue in employment in their particular occupation or calling, are then faced with the position of drawing 26 weeks’ benefits and in the circumstances if the board deems fit to extend those benefits (it is in the board’s discretion) the benefits can only be extended for another 26 weeks because the board is subject to the conditions in paragraph (m) of the 1962 amendments. So in the end we find that these people then cannot enjoy any further benefits in terms of the Act and in terms of the contributions they have made over a long period of time. I feel that this particular aspect is one which perhaps the Minister could have considered more favourably and perhaps he could have been a little more generous in regard particularly to the illness allowances. This clause deals with the ordinary benefits or ordinary extended benefits and extended allowances under illness allowances and makes the amendments that the Minister referred to in regard to maternity benefits. Other members on this side of the House will deal in detail with some of those particular aspects, particularly in regard to the maternity benefits. However, Sir, this difficulty is one which. I believe, is a very real difficulty indeed, and I could quote many cases to the hon. the Minister of a great deal of hardship that has been experienced by those persons. It reopens the whole question as to what happens to the contributor who after having made his contributions to the fund, receives his initial benefits and possibly extended benefits, but is unable to find other employment. The Minister’s point in the past has been that such a man has to look elsewhere, and that it is not the purpose of the fund to assist in such cases. But I would like to mention that the difficulties and the hardships experienced by those persons, particularly the older workers, who are over 50 years of age and who do not find it so easy to embark upon a new career and find some other form of employment if they had to give up their employment due to illness, are very real. These are genuine cases, people who are genuine work-seekers, and I am sure the hon. Minister should go out of his way to try and assist those people who are genuine work-seekers. Persons between the ages of 50 and 60 do not qualify for any old-age pension or social pension, and in many cases, they are unable to qualify for a disability grant, and if they should be of sufficient physical disability to qualify for disability grants, they are in some cases disqualified from receiving a disability grant because of the application of the means test. These people are faced with this difficulty that they made contributions to the fund and they feel that they should be able to go to the fund and receive further benefits because they are in dire need. I think that many of these cases deserve sympathetic consideration, and I feel a little disappointed that the provisions of Clause 10 of the Bill before the House have not taken due cognizance of the genuine work-seeker and the contributor who is seeking further and additional aid from the fund. Such a person is off the labour market, perhaps temporarily, and he is unable to receive the additional benefits to which he hoped he would be entitled.

The other aspects included in this Bill in regard to seasonal workers and seasonal businesses, which are dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, we will deal with mainly in committee when we hope to raise certain points, but as far as the principles are concerned, we are in agreement that these people who wish to receive the cover of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be entitled to become contributors and enjoy those benefits. As far as Clause 3 is concerned, the definition of “earnings”, we appreciate the differentiation between the position as far as the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned and as far as this particular Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. The other amendments, as the hon. Minister indicated, deal with certain administrative and consequential amendments in the Bill, and the question of “prescription” is also an amendment to which we see no objection and we believe in principle that is also to the benefit of the better administration of the Act.

Briefly the position is then that we on this side of the House support this Bill in principle, on the basis that it widens the scope and the coverage and is raising the ceiling, as provided for in the schedule and in Clause 2 of the Bill, and that it does obviate unnecessary delay in dealing with cases of urgent need should they require extended benefits. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the limitations of the 1962 amendments virtually remain the same, and only in that respect this side of the House feels perhaps a little disappointed, but we see this Bill as an improvement on the existing position and we welcome this Bill.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has indicated that he supports the principle of this Bill. He has again put forward a plea that the restrictions imposed in 1962 to obviate abuses of the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be lifted to a certain extent. Sir, I think past events have shown that the steps which were taken in 1962 were wise and necessary steps. The hon. member has pointed out that the fund has increased in the interim; I want to point out that the fund has increased not only as a result of the restrictions imposed in 1962 but also because of the improvement in the economic position of our country. In 1962, that is to say, the year before the Act was amended and an attempt was made to eliminate these abuses, our unemployment figure reached its peak; the unemployment figure soared in that year to 31,793; thereafter it gradually declined, and we have now once again reached a period of full employment. But I also want to point out to hon. members on the other side that not only did the Unemployment Insurance Board adhere to its recommendation of 1962 that certain amendments should be brought about, but there have been very few cases where the applicants have been able to prove that they have suffered deprivation and have asked for additional allowances. The, hon. member mentioned certain figures. He mentioned, for example, that in the case of illness allowances, there were 83 applications for additional allowances, 56 of which were granted. Sir, when one takes into account the large number of applicants there were for sickness benefits, namely 23,000, one realizes what a small percentage of these people applied for additional benefits. Similarly, as far as ordinary benefits are concerned, there was a very small percentage of applications when one bears in mind the fact that as far as ordinary benefits are concerned there were 74,000 applications in 1963 and that 5,677 were turned down. A very small percentage of those people asked for their applications for additional assistance under this legislation to be reconsidered. That is why I say that the facts show that the steps which were taken in 1962 were timeous and necessary steps, and although one welcomes the provision which is now being made to give the Unemployment Insurance Board the opportunity to grant further assistance up to a maximum of 52 weeks. I want to say that I do not think the hon. member has shown that the steps which were taken at that time were not justified.

The other amendments which are being brought about in this Bill, in connection with prescriptions, for example, and in connection with women who have to undergo X-ray treatment, are also essential. These are all essential steps and I am pleased that this Bill has the support of both this side and the other side of the House.

Although we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and are going to support it, that of course does not mean that this is the beginning and the end of all that can be done for the workers.

There are several clauses here which require some discussion. Firstly, I want to say a word or two about the seasonal worker. I am not altogether satisfied that in Clause 4(2) we have a good definition which can meet the various difficulties which are going to arise in the very near future. You see. Sir, the clause reads—

I want to know why the Minister insists on the worker having to work for the same person throughout the eight months? Surely a person who works seven months for one person and then for some reason or other; perhaps because he himself so desires, or because of a failure in the plant that he has been working at—goes to another factory, immediately after the seven months should not be penalized because he has changed his job or she has changed her job from one factory to another. Why should it be necessary for a person to work for the same particular individual, or work in the same factory? There must be a reason for it, but I cannot see the reason, and I hope that the Minister in due course will tell us why he insists on this clause reading as it does. Will it be welcomed, by those people who are excluded in the Bill? I would like to see some, relaxation of that particular clause so that one can give a chance to those people who go from job to job, but are never out of work and who immediately go from one type of employment to another type of employment. They don’t work for a day or two and then have a rest for a month. These are continuous workers, but they are going to be penalized now because the Minister insists on them having to work for the same person. I hope the Minister will give an explanation which will be satisfactory to us.

Secondly I want to say that I am very pleased that the Minister has taken into consideration those requests that we on this side of the House made in 1962, and to some extent he has met our requests. We appreciate that very much. But let me say that what was said in this House, namely that the Unemployment Fund was being pestered by thousands of won’t-works. by people who do not want to work and that the fund would be denuded in no time if restrictions were not imposed on their demands, has not been proved to be correct. It has not been proved that such is the case. It has been conclusively proved by the hon, member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), that the fund has increased, but the demands on the fund have fallen considerably and the payments have fallen by over R1,000,000. I think that is very, very important. and I cannot agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) when he says that the Act of 1962 has proved the Minister’s case at that time. I don’t think so.

I think what does follow is that there were exaggerations made, and that it does follow that we in South Africa are not plagued with large groups of won’t-works. I think it has been proved conclusively that those people to-day who are able to work are working and there are very, very few unemployed people. That is one of the reasons of course why the fund is growing and is one of the reasons why there is so little demand on the fund. But the hon. Minister must realize this position and must be a little more relaxing in his prohibitions. In dealing with the unemployed people and especially those people who are unemployed because of illness, I would say he could relax a little bit further. The 26 weeks is fair enough, the 26 weeks in which he gives a sickness payout, is fair enough. However, people do come with a demand for a further 26 weeks, or perhaps for a further part of 26 weeks—in any case they ask for extended relief—and the Minister says now that those applications will go direct to the Unemployment Insurance Board. I do not know whether the Unemployment Insurance Board at this juncture is able to judge whether or not a person has a justifiable claim on the fund. I also don’t know what provision is made for people who receive a rejection in regard to their application. What happens when the application goes in? I take it the members of the board study the application, go into the merits of it and agree to give an extended period of unemployment pay or sickness pay, and that is the end of it, their word is the last word.

Now I would like to see on this Board a representative of the medical profession; it can be a district surgeon or it can be an independent doctor, but if possible it should be a general practitioner, one who is used to dealing with the ordinary illnesses which come under his care in his everyday work. This medical practitioner should act as a referee to the Board and he should be able to give his opinion, because every request for relief after 26 weeks should be made together with a supporting certificate in which details of the person’s illness or incapacity should be set out, and the referee then, together with the members of the Board, can come to a conclusion. And if there should be a rejection of the person’s claim, after that there should be some sort of appeal for such persons, and then perhaps there could be a tribunal where they could have their cases heard. That would give satisfaction to these people who are forced in many cases through incapacity of some sort to stay off work for longer than 52 weeks. In many cases they are obliged to stay off after 26 weeks, but when a person has been off for 52 weeks it becomes a very difficult problem to decide what to do with that person. I would think that most of those people if they do make their claims on the ground of illness are permanently incapacitated, and I think there should be special provision made for these people who are in such a state of permanent incapacity. These are not the won’t-works, these are special cases, and I think for them special provision should be made. In other words, they should have a referee, a medical referee, who could help the board to decide the application and if it is rejected, that person should still have the right to go to an appeal, and if the appeal is rejected, he would have to go to Social Welfare naturally. But I would suggest that these two steps when dealing with serious applications of people who find that they are unable to work after 26 weeks, should receive sympathetic consideration. The other question is the 13 weeks period that a person is required to work after he has been ill for 26 weeks. This does create a certain amount of hardship in the case of people who try to go back to work too soon, when they are still not fully recovered. I think there again the time has come for the Minister to review the question of the 13 weeks compulsory work as it were, the 13 weeks before they are entitled to get a further grant from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I would say that even in cases where people have not worked for 13 weeks they should have a right to say to the Minister, through his Board that because of this or that circumstance or this type of illness, I have been obliged to stop work before the 13 weeks were completed. I think the hon. Minister should listen to those cases and that again there should be a referee on the Unemployment Insurance Board who could give an ear to these people who find it necessary to give up work before they have completed their 13 weeks.

In Clause 10 (d) we are dealing with maternity benefits and grants to those people who fall pregnant while working in those institutions where ionizing radiation is present. I don’t know whether I have read the clause properly, but the way I read the clause it would seem to me that in the sub-paragraph (b) only radiographers are included. I am not sure whether that is the case or not. Can the hon. Minister tell us whether those people who are working in radiologists’ consulting rooms for instance and also to a certain extent are affected by radiation, are included? Let us take these specific cases of the typists, the receptionists who are working in those rooms, who are continually going in and out to the rooms in which radiation is taking place. Will these people as well as the radiographers be included under this clause? If not, I would suggest to the hon. Minister that he makes sure that they are included, because they are just as vulnerable as the radiographers—as a matter of fact, I think more so, because the radiographer at least knows what precautions to take.

It only includes radiographers.

Then I hope that the hon. Minister will take into consideration the suggestion I have made that he should take in those other people who are affected by radiation. I would appeal to the hon. Minister to make some sort of concession to those women who are not in employment when they fall pregnant, to those young women especially who are newly married and who fall pregnant soon after marriage. They give up their work perhaps for a short period to establish themselves in their new home. If they fall pregnant during that period of establishing their home and are not working, they are not able to get any maternity grant. Surely we should encourage those people to have families. Only the other day we sat here in this House and very piously said how important it was for the White people especially to build up their families. Everybody was so keen that we should all have big families. What is the Minister doing about it? Here he has got an opportunity of saying: Look, I am going to relax this position; I am going to give you an opportunity for a year; if you fall pregnant during this period, after a year after marriage, I will see to it that you will get a maternity grant, and it is not necessary for you to be working at the time that you fall pregnant. The hon. Minister has got plenty of money in the kitty. We have not too many babies in the cradles at the moment. Let him give some of the money that he has got in the kitty to the mothers who will welcome it, and who will say “Well, it is not going to be a hardship to me now. because I am going to get so much money every month.” If we are sincere in saying that we want to have big families in South Africa and we want to encourage the White mother to have babies, then the Minister must give a lead and he must now say: Right, I am going to listen to the hon. member for Rosettenville and I am going to say to all those people who are newly wed that they need not be in employment; if they want to have their first baby, I am going to see to it that they get their maternity grant. Then he will have his name up in lights outside every maternity home.

I want to say again that we welcome this Bill. I don’t want to labour the other clauses. There are a few speakers on our side who will deal with other points, but I hope that those simple suggestions I have made to the Minister, will not fall on deaf ears, and that he will find ways and means of meeting our requests.

I should like to add my word of approval to those already spoken by hon. members on this side of the House and to say that in general terms we give this Bill our blessing. There is not much more for me to add to what has been said already, except that I should like to comment on certain clauses.

In regard to Clause 2, we approve of the rise in the ceiling of wages (in terms of which benefits may be drawn by contributors to the fund) from R2,500 p.a. to R2,860, although we would like to see the ceiling a good deal higher than that. It is high time that something was done about raising the ceiling and we are extremely glad that the Minister has come with this proposal to-day because the value of money has severely declined since 1957 when this provision was first written into the Act. The value of money is almost half of what it was then. The present amendment will mean relief to a very large number of people in terms of unemployment benefits, especially since the cost of living has gone up so drastically since the original figure was incorporated in the Act in 1957. I should just like to add my own disappointment to that expressed by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) in regard to Bantu workers. As hon. members can read in the Bill—I do not think the Minister mentioned it in his introductory speech—there is no increase in the ceiling for Bantu workers. I would like to point out that thousands of Bantu in the urban areas, who are engaged in industry and various other jobs, live below the poverty datum line. That applies particularly to Bantu workers in the urban areas. They are the really poor people and it is a matter of great regret to us that the ceiling for the payment of unemployment benefits to these people particularly has not been raised at all. The Act, after all, exists for the purpose of assisting the people in the lower income groups, and these people represent the lowest income group of the whole lot. As the hon. member for Umbilo has pointed out, with the present accumulation of money in the fund, which has been quite considerable over the last few years, surely this ceiling could have been raised for them also when the board was discussing raising the ceiling for White workers. The Minister’s 1963 report reflected quite a large surplus in the fund. That of course is the report I had occasion to refer to in the House last Friday when we were dealing with the question of the standards of the English language, but I will not repeat any of my comments in that regard this afternoon. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has heard something about it indirectly.

With regard to Clause 4, we also approve of the contents of this clause, which offers unemployment benefits to seasonal workers employed up to a period of eight months in any year. Previously this type of worker had a very hard time. We have been aware of that fact for some time and I am very glad that the Minister has come with this amendment, because many of these seasonal workers are highly skilled workers and it is high time that they were included. I am glad that they will now be able to make contributions and draw benefits accordingly. As a Cape member of this House, I was particularly pleased to hear the Minister say that consideration had been given to these seasonal workers largely because of the situation existing in the Western Province. The workers in the Western Province, I can assure him, will be extremely glad to hear this news. The present amendment in regard to seasonal workers, as the memorandum points out, does not only include seasonal workers, labourers only, but includes the administrative, technical, office, sales and maintenance staff as well, and they will be able to draw these benefits now also. We very much welcome the extension of the scope of the Act in this regard.

Then in regard to Clause 10, whereby the board may authorize the payment of further benefits to any contributor or any class of contributor at either the full or such reduced rates and for such periods as it may deem fit, I need hardly tell him that we are very pleased that applications for extended benefits are now to go to the board direct and so by-pass the old complicated machinery that existed in the past. This will now do away with the previous time-lag, as the Minister pointed out, when applications for benefits were laboriously made through a series of committees and it was a very long-winded business. Many of the people who made these applications have no resources other than the wages they earn and they are apt to find themselves destitute whilst all his machinery of application has to be gone through. The working public cannot fail to be very pleased at this improvement in the general administrative machinery of the Act. The board, of course, is now also directly empowered to continue payments to deserving people under certain circumstances and the discretion they previously had under the Act continues. We welcome the fact that the whole process is to be hastened.

The other part of Clause 10 which interests me particularly deals with the payment of maternity benefits to female workers. I will not add much to what the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has said on the matter, except this, that I need not tell the Minister that this part of the clause will be very much welcomed by women workers throughout the Republic. For reasons of health, as the memorandum says, it will be necessary for these women when they fall pregnant to leave work almost immediately. This is a practical proposition and I would like to thank the Minister for giving this matter his attention during the recess and coming with this amendment in the Bill. I would like to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Rosettenville with regard to young women who are starting their families and who may be in employment but who may find it necessary to remain at home for a certain period when they are stabilizing their families. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville had a very good point there and I would like to support him on it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would give that matter consideration during the coming recess. I conclude by saying that I appreciate the Minister’s approach to this amending Bill because it has been very reasonable and fair. He gave a very lucid explanation indeed and we welcome the amendments generally.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to this Bill the Minister has had the reaction from this side of the House. We will support this Bill. This is the ninth amendment of this particular Act and when one looks at the Act with all the amendments it almost looks like the house that Jack built. It is becoming a little unwieldy. I would say that we have disagreed with some of the amendments the Minister has moved over the years, and we disagreed with him in 1962. When we move amendments to this Act we must always remember that this is not a social benefit Act, but an insurance Act for our workers, and we should always look at it in that way. It is quite evident that as a social security measure it has been necessary. We do not have any compulsory contributory pension schemes in this country and the worker has always been afraid for his old age.

Sir, the hour is late and at this stage I should like to move—

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

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.