The hon. member for Transkei put two questions to me and drew an inference to which I am in duty bound to reply. His first question was whether any conditions were attached to the donation of R100 000 by the City Council of Johannesburg. Secondly he wanted to know whether I had given any consideration to where levy payments were going to be suspended. The inference he drew was that Johannesburg could not use levy funds anywhere except in Johannesburg because there was no homeland abutting on Johannesburg.

*As regards the R100 000, there is really no question of any conditions being attached to that. It is rather a question of a gentleman’s agreement between that local authority and my department. I do not believe I can do any better than reading out what the position is in this regard. I am doing so because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding; as a matter of fact, there is no reason for any misunderstanding. When all the facts are known we shall be perfectly able to understand each other well. So let me read out the following—

On 12th March, 1971, the Town Clerk wrote—

So these are the facts in connection with this donation of R100 000. I assume that the hon. member now has clarity in regard to this matter and that I may leave it at that.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether I had given any consideration to where levy payments were going to be suspended.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is such a lot of noise in the House that I find it difficult to follow the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Order! Hon. members must be more quiet please, so that the hon. the Deputy Minister may put his case.

The question of abolishing levy moneys in areas in which such moneys have accumulated, is a very difficult problem and creates practical problems which compel us to exercise a great deal of care. Let me just state these problems in brief. One of the practical problems one has to face is that when one abolishes this levy in one area, other areas will want to know why it is not abolished in their areas as well Problems may arise from this. At the moment employers contribute approximately R2 per month, on an average, to the Services Levy Fund. If the payment of this levy were to be abolished in one area because of the fact that there was a surplus and employers consequently no longer need to pay the levy of R2 per month, Bantu from the surrounding areas, areas in which the levy fund is still in operation, would tend—experience has taught us this—to move to those areas in which it has been abolished because employers who need no longer pay the levy money tend to add that money to the salaries of their Bantu employees. Therefore, before one can give any attention to abolishing the payment of this levy, one has to face up squarely to practical problems such as these. As I have said, abolishing the levy will give rise to dissatisfaction amongst the Bantu employees, something which we, like hon. members opposite, should like to avoid under all circumstances. Because of these practical problems I have been obliged to refuse a request for abolishing the Services Levy Fund in the Pinelands area in Natal. I want to tell the hon. member on the opposite side, however, that we appointed a committee for conducting a thorough investigation into this whole matter. The committee presented its report in connection with this matter and at present we are considering this report with a view to possibly establishing a consolidated fund. Hon. members will realize that this is an extremely delicate matter which has to be handled with utmost circumspection because of the important implications it has in respect of Bantu labour as well as the implications it has for the White employers concerned in the matter.

Finally the hon. member for Transkei said—

I promised to reply to this. Sir, that is quite correct and I have no argument with that, but I should like to point out that section 19 (3) bis (g) of the Urban Areas Act reads as follows—and the hon. member for Transkei referred to this in the Second Reading debate—

And that is the crucial word—

Sir, on this point, too, we should understand each other very clearly so that there cannot be any misunderstanding in this regard. Our interpretation of the important word “residing” in section 19 (3) bis (g), which I have just quoted, has been to date, as I explained to hon. members on Friday, that those levy funds should be utilized in the interests of the employer paying the levy and in the interests of the Bantu employee in whose interests the employer is paying the levy. For that reason the hon. member is perfectly correct. But I do say that we should not misunderstand each other. Fairly recently the Johannesburg Councillors came to see me about this question of whether they would not be able to use levy funds, in the same way as they have now used this donation from Bantu beer profits, for example, in a homeland which is not situated too far away and from which they draw of their Bantu workers. I want it to be clearly understood that my reply to them was, as I told hon. members on Friday, that we wanted to keep to the assurances which had been given by Dr. Verwoerd. I state most emphatically that the intention was that those funds should be used in the interests of the employers and in the interests of their employees. As far as I am concerned that is all there is to it, but let us take a look at what the Act allows. If a local authority were to take the initiative and, firstly, were to come forward with a definite project in a Bantu homeland in the interests of those Bantu employees, secondly, if it then were to be proclaimed—it has to be clearly understood that there must be a proclamation—and, thirdly, if the local levy fund committee and the central levy fund committee were to come forward with a request of that nature— and hon. members must remember that the local levy fund committee represents the employers, i.e. trade and industry and all the other bodies—I could not say in anticipation what my reply would be, because in that case this section 19 (3) bis of the Urban Areas Act and the interpretation to be given to that section would crop up for the first time. Up to now this has not been the case. I informed the Johannesburg City Council of my attitude —and I think they departed perfectly satisfied with that to their request concerning whether I would take the initiative in convincing the local levy fund committee or the central levy fund committee of the necessity therefor and of the fact that in that way levy fund moneys would be used in the interests of the employer and of his employee in a homeland for the construction of services, etc. My attitude is that I shall not take that initiative under any circumstances; however, I cannot withhold a local authority from taking the initiative itself. In that case, however, I would follow the requirements I have just set out to this Committee very conscientiously. I also want to state most emphatically that if those employers, through their local levy fund committees and the central levy fund committee, and the local authority cannot settle those matters amongst themselves to the satisfaction of all, I shall, from the nature of the case, not be prepared even to look at such a proposal. In conclusion I want to content myself by saying that I shall keep to the assurances we have given hon. members. In the light of the assurances I have given, I also hope that it will be very clear to hon. members that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River, and I hope that he will understand this, is in fact much more restrictive than what I am prepared to do by means of the amendment which I myself moved.

I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the detailed explanation he has given and the way he answered our questions. The hon. member for Mooi River unfortunately cannot be here today, but I think it can be taken that he would accept the Deputy Minister’s explanation and not proceed with his amendment on the assurance given by the Deputy Minister in moving his own amendment that the law will in fact remain as it is. But there is only one thing that worries me. The Deputy Minister has said that he cannot abolish the levy in any area, because if he abolishes it in one area, other areas may ask that it be abolished there as well. Now, I do not think that is a good reason. I am not going to quote again. The Deputy Minister has accepted the assurance given by the late Dr. Verwoerd that he would abolish it and that the payments would be suspended as soon as their purpose had been served in a particular area. But I do not see any sense in making these employers pay this levy and accumulating millions. I have told the Deputy Minister what we understand has been accumulated so far. It is something like R26 million, and in Johannesburg I think it is R5 million. I do not see the sense of going on accumulating these millions unless they can be used, and used in the particular area, as was envisaged in the Act. Therefore I say I do not think the Deputy Minister’s reasons for not suspending payment are sound. All he has to do is to suspend it because he does not abolish it completely; he merely suspends it, and I do not think he has given a good reason for not suspending it in these areas where they have accumulated millions.

Then my difficulty about the interpretation of the law is this. The Deputy Minister says he can proclaim in terms of section 19 (3) bis (g) an area where the funds can be used by a local authority in a Reserve. But if we look at the wording of the clause, the operative word is “resides”. The Deputy Minister says the question is what is the interpretation of “resides”: I have no doubt that “resides” was intended to mean where the workman resides at the time of his work. But the difficulty I see with the Deputy Minister’s interpretation now is that this levy can only be used by some other body which controls an area where—I think this is the way the Deputy Minister would like to interpret it now— his family resides, or where his wife resides if she resides in a Reserve. Then the question arises, what is a body? Will it fall under some other municipality?

No.

Well, what sort of body can then be envisaged? I do not see how it can be given to the body where the wife resides, unless she is actually residing there at that time. I understood that the purpose of the discussion with the Deputy Minister was to establish some new area where the workmen and their families can reside. I do not see how that can be done under the law as it stands. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he has appointed a committee to go into the question of how they can utilize these levies.

No, you have misunderstood that. I will come back to it.

Yes, but what I wanted to ask was whether the Minister has appointed a committee—I thought that that had already been decided—to advise him what they can do with the surpluses. He is not stuck with them, but these surpluses cannot be used at the moment. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will come to this House with any recommendations of the committee, either to amend the law, or to explain to us how he intends to overcome this difficulty, so that we again can express our feelings about it. I must say that the employer is the man who is paying the levy. He pays it on the distinct undertaking which was given to him by the late Dr. Verwoerd. I submit that the employer’s wishes must not be overlooked in deciding what to do with the money which has already been paid.

I can assure the hon. member that the employer’s wishes will be looked after under all circumstances. As I have already pointed out, under no circumstances will I be willing to look at any proposal with regard to the levy fund, unless the local levy fund committee and the central levy fund committee come to me with unanimous recommendations. I gave that assurance to the Johannesburg City Council as well.

*In addition I should like to tell the hon. member what I meant when I spoke earlier. The committee was appointed at the very request of the industrialists, the people engaged in trade, etc., who had asked whether consideration could not be given not only to the services levy funds but also to the consolidation of all these odd fees. At present we are considering the report of that committee. I may just tell the hon. member that when the report has been considered and we have taken decisions, we shall undoubtedly come to this House in that regard, because we regard it as very important. For that reason I am just repeating that I have dealt very fully with the interpretation of the question of “residing”, etc., but to date no such difficulty or problem has cropped up. Just because I was afraid that some misunderstanding might arise with regard to this question and because I might subsequently be accused of having said this or that, I have dealt very fully with this matter in order to ensure that no misunderstanding would arise in this regard. I just want to repeat that in respect of the Bill at present before this Committee, hon. members may accept my assurance, one which I am having written into the Bill by means of the amendment, that the steps which will be taken of the services levy fund will be exactly and strictly in terms of the existing Services Levy Act.

In view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurances, as a sort of quid pro quo for his kind acceptance of my amendment the other day, I will withdraw my amendment to this clause. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he would reply to the point which I raised last week in this regard. I asked him about the use of moneys standing to the credit of the local authorities and the city council, namely the Special Accident Funds and so on.

Welfare funds.

Yes, the welfare funds and the funds raised by collecting donations from the public to cover special disasters, in other words, the disaster funds. Can he give us the assurance whether the cutting of red tape, which until now has been a feature of the administration of such funds, will be continued when the board takes control of these funds, which consist of considerable amounts. To my mind, the best part of the funds, apart from the fact that the public has contributed generously, is the fact that they can be applied immediately as required, without searching enquiries while the dependants and other victims of disasters go in very dire need. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us some definite assurance in this regard?

Amendment proposed by Mrs. H. Suzman, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I have gone into this matter. I intended creating an opportunity of replying to the hon. member for Houghton in this regard. For that reason I am pleased that I can do so now.

The Bill at present before this Committee provides in clause 13 in respect of funds that if the fund’s money has not been granted—here the important word is “granted”—to the Bantu or to a specific Bantu this administration board will have no authority over that money and it therefore remains the money of the welfare fund or the accident fund, according to circumstances. If the hon. member for Houghton were to peruse clause 13 very carefully, she would see that the provisions of clause 13 are not at all applicable to those funds.

As I have said, I went properly into this matter and also discussed it with the manager of Non-European Affairs of the Johannesburg City Council, Mr. Coller. He informed me that to a certain extent this entire matter was actually being administered by a committee of officials of the Johannesburg municipal department of Non-European Affairs, but that it was being managed completely outside the control and scope of both the City Council and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. For that reason the administration boards will have no authority over this.

To this I just want to add that at the time of the establishment of such a Bantu administration board in Johannesburg the management committee of such a fund or funds, in terms of their own constitution, will be able to decide for themselves in what way they, under the new circumstances, if and when they arose, will cooperate with such an administration board. They may also decide not to co-operate. They are completely at liberty to do as they like, because this legislation actually has no bearing whatsoever on that.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to get clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister on a certain aspect of this clause.

As I read the clause, the moment a board is formed, local authorities will have to pay over any credit balances reflected in regard to their Bantu accounts. I obviously have no quarrel with this. However, as I see it, this could raise certain financial implications for local authorities. These amounts are very large and are not fluid. They are obviously re-invested in other funds of the local authority. Quite obviously, if there is to be a demand from the boards to pay over these amounts right away, then the local authorities will either have to raise this money by means of an external loan or by special rate. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in fact, the boards will take over the loans as they stand and wait for the money until the loan matures?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise two matters with the hon. the Deputy Minister. In his reply a few moments ago, to a question put by the hon. member for Houghton, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister stated that the funds to which he referred, i.e. funds which have been received by the Non-European Affairs Department of, for instance, the Johannesburg City Council, for welfare needs of some nature arising out of some unfortunate incident where the public very generously contributed money, were not affected by the terms of clause 13. In this regard I should like to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 13 (1) (a) (v) which reads as follows:

The funds of a board shall consist—

There are also quite a number of funds of this nature. I think most of us who have at some time or another served on a local authority have had something to do with these funds. During my career as a member of the Johannesburg City Council, we established what was known as the Albertynsville Disaster Fund. A considerable amount of money was donated within a very short period and an amount of some R20 000 or R30 000 left over after the necessary moneys had been spent, was used to form a welfare fund which gave further assistance to the children and the families of some of these people who were affected. Furthermore it was used as a general welfare fund. Quite a fair amount of money is in the hands of the Johannesburg City Council, as there probably is in the hands of many other town councils. That money is used without any red tape at all, as it has been so well expressed before, and it is administered by a special small committee within the particular local authority’s administration. This money is used to the best advantage and with the least delay to those people concerned. This is a very important aspect. If this, for instance, were to be left with the local authority as part of the general welfare work of the authority, it would be satisfactory, because it may be somewhat strange if it is administered by this body which we have described as a purely objective body and which does not have much close touch with the intimate detailed affairs of that particular community. I would like the hon. the Deputy-Minister to explain his own statement in the light of clause 13 (1) (a) (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii), which deal with the donations. There is quite a large amount of moneys which do not flow into the Bantu Revenue Fund in accordance with the laws under which Bantu affairs are administered and in respect of which certain taxation or other forms of levy are payable.

The other aspect I would like to mention is the question of the word “reside” which the hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly said is the key word in this whole situation. The way we understood it at the time the services levy fund was imposed, was that it would provide services for housing for the workers. I do not know whether the specific question of families arose at that time. What I do know is that at the time when section 10 of the Bantu (Urban areas) Consolidation Act was amended in 1952, the then Minister of Native Affairs, Dr. Verwoerd, did talk about families and he made special provision for families. In fact, he said it was essential to ensure that those who were directly dependent on the worker were properly cared for. They, so it was said, would have the right to live with the worker in the urban areas. I have read this extract very carefully this morning in Hansard and the hon. the Deputy Minister will find it there himself. The then hon. the Minister of Native Affairs, Dr. Verwoerd, went out of his way specifically to refer to that. However, the essence of the services levy fund is to provide services for homes erected for the residence of the worker in respect of whom the employer made those contributions. If we talk about the word “reside”, the example which the hon. the Deputy Minister had in mind with regard to Pretoria, for instance, is a place, Ga Rankuwa, which is situated on the borders of Pretoria. Another example, I think, is Umlazi, which is situated right next door to the big industrial area of Durban. Another example is that of Mdantsane, which again is right on the doorstep of East London. Therefore, the provision of services for the residences of workers could fall by a reasonable stretch of imagination within the ambit of the purpose of these funds. But if the worker’s home is to be in the Transkei, which I use as an example of a Reserve, while he works on the Witwatersrand, he has to be housed. The fact that his family may reside there is possibly not an issue which was contemplated at the time. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should make it perfectly clear to us what he has in mind, having now underlined this word “reside” and having stated this as being of cardinal importance and as one of the four pillars on which he will base his whole approach to the subject. I think we should have a very much clearer and more practical explanation as to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind, because I am sure that employers of labour will be very interested to know exactly what was meant.

Furthermore, as a final point, there was no question that, as and when sufficient funds have been collected to provide the necessary services, these funds will then come to an end. It was virtually an implied condition that the necessity for providing further levies would fall away. If a township like Soweto, for example, or any other township outside a local authority, continues to grow or expand and if additional houses are built for which there is a tremendous necessity in the country today, the fund would then of course carry on in order to provide those services, save for one interesting factor, namely that most big cities have large sums accumulated and are only able to spend those moneys if and when the hon. the Deputy Minister approves and permits the provision of further housing. This is the crux of the use of the Services Levy Fund. I believe that there has been a cessation of this practice. It has already been expressed in the Press that in Johannesburg there is a shortage of housing and that this shortage is resulting in certain conditions being created which are not of a very healthy nature. This is something of which the hon. the Deputy Minister must take note. If housing continues to flow in the normal way, providing for the residence of workers, the levy funds will be spent. I think it is in this respect that we must view this whole question of whether levy funds will continue to be provided. The question of whether an employer adds that levy fund to the wages of an employee simply because he does not pay it any more and so creates a certain difference of wage levels between prescribed areas will, be entirely foreign to this whole question. The question of a levy is something which has nothing to do with what an employer will do when the time comes for him to cease making payment of these levies. On these few issues the Committee is entitled to a very much clearer and a much more frank exposition.

Mr. Chairman, I went to great pains to explain as fully as I could what the position with these levy funds was. It is therefore difficult for me to understand why the hon. member is again raising the points I have already dealt with. I have nothing in mind in regard to these levy funds except to stick to the terms of the law and about this there must be no misunderstanding. All the people concerned, such as employers, must know it.

Yes, I know

If the hon. member understands it why does he then raise these matters again?

Because you mentioned the word “reside” and said that it was of cardinal importance in this Bill.

If the hon. member knows that employers know exactly where they stand, he will also know that I say that I have nothing more in mind in regard to the Levy Fund than to stick to the terms of the Bill. He has that assurance. The position is that I may have nothing in mind at all, but there may just be the possibility that the Johannesburg City Council and the local levy fund committee and the central levy fund committee may at some stage approach me with a request to utilize the levy fund as they would want to use it. My point is that even under those circumstances I will stick to the terms of the legislation and that even under those circumstances I will not take the initiative. My reply to the Johannesburg City Council therefore was that if they want to do it they must take the initiative and must go and iron out their own problems with the local levy fund committee and with the central levy fund committee, because I want the employer as well as the Bantu employee to be 100 per cent satisfied. Is the hon. member satisfied now?

What about housing?

As far as this question of housing is concerned, it is not necessary for us to conduct a debate on that now. Hon. members are at liberty to discuss this on the Vote of the Minister. However, I am prepared to tell hon. member now that on 19th February, 1971, two housing schemes in Johannesburg, i.e. 300 Bantu houses at Mapetla Extension, and 416 houses at the Mulapu Extension, were submitted to me. On 22nd February, 1971, I approved both schemes.

What about the money?

The money was a question of discussion between the Department of Community Development and the Johannesburg local authority.

Where are you going to get the money?

As I have just said, this is a question we may safely discuss on the Vote. I do not think we need do it here.

Order! I just want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should not go into this too deeply at the moment.

Then I must reply to a few questions hon. members put to me. I first want to point out that the hon. member for Jeppes and the hon. member for Houghton spoke of two different kinds of funds. The hon. member for Houghton spoke of an independent, registered fund. I have given her my reply. The hon. member for Jeppes spoke of a completely different kind of fund. I want to tell him that he should take a look at clause 13 (3) of this Bill. It reads—

Now comes the important part—

Where is that?

On page 26.

I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg North that it is precisely the same case there, and I want to refer him to clause 13 (1) which reads as follows—

I see the hon. member is indicating that he is satisfied. I am grateful for that. It is very clear that if a local authority were to have a loan of R60 million, or whatever the circumstances might be, and those funds were to be transferred to the administration board, and we were to state that that money had to be paid over immediately, surely it would stand to reason that that would place a very heavy burden on the local authority, a burden which one wants to avoid. Therefore we have had inserted here “subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine” so that the Minister may say that that money may be paid back over 20 or 25 years, as the case may be. We shall be as fair as possible so as not to embarrass a local authority because of a loan it has raised.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if these accounts, as audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, will be laid on the Table of the House.

Yes, I think that is a fair request. I think I can give the hon. member the undertaking that they will be laid on the Table of the House. He can take it that it will be the case.

Thank you. Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

This clause provides that—

Now I want to know what is anticipated. What type of Bantu residence will be in the area of a local authority which is taxable? That means that it will be outside a Bantu township. Can the Deputy Minister tell us whether it is Bantu hostels that this clause attempts to exclude? They are defined under “residential areas” as well.

This is defined in the Urban Areas Act—in other words, action will only be taken here in terms of that Act. At the moment I cannot say offhand whether it will be hostels or what other circumstances there may be. But as I said, the position is defined in full in the Urban Areas Act. Clause 15 merely provides that where there is a provision in the Urban Areas Act in connection with the collection of taxes, we must act accordingly. There is nothing more to it.

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can explain this clause. It provides that no rates shall be levied upon any land or premises owned by a board which have been defined, set apart and laid out as a Bantu residential area within the meaning of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. What I would like to know is this. Will the local authority not be supplying any services which in the ordinary course would have been covered by rates? I am certain that this must be of deep concern to local authorities because they may be supplying services which in the ordinary course are covered by rates and yet here they will not be able to collect such rates. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister give us an indication whether local authorities are satisfied with this provision as it stands?

I can give the hon. member the assurance that the U.M.E. is absolutely satisfied with the clause as it is. It was discussed, although not at length because this was not necessary. Why?—because this clause has no other intention than to lay down for the purposes of this legislation the status quo position under the Bantu Urban Areas Act —nothing more. In other words, my reply to the hon. member is the same as that I have given to the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. that as far as this legislation is concerned, we shall act only in accordance with the relevant sections of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. Nothing will be done which goes beyond what that Act prescribes in regard to rates, the definitions of a Bantu area, etc.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

This clause prescribes that local authorities will have to give certain assistance and facilities to a board. During the Second Reading debate I queried the exact meaning of the proviso to this clause, i.e. “Provided that any charged made in respect of any such services shall not exceed the charges for similar services provided in respect of any area within the jurisdiction of such local authority”. I then instanced a municipality subsidizing certain services. For instance, I do not think in Cape Town they make a separate charge for sewerage. The charge is included in the general rates. Other municipalities make a charge for sewerage If the board requests the municipality of Cape Town, for instance. to supply a sewerage service, the municipality would naturally want to make a charge for it. Well, how would they do that, in view of the fact that this proviso prohibits them for charging more than the charges they levy for the service in their own area?

As I explained at the Second Reading, the position here is that one cannot expect a Bantu administration board, which does not have to do with Whites, after all, but with Bantu, to pay more when it comes to the provision of sewerage or water works— basic services without which one cannot have a Bantu township. Surely it is not the function of the Bantu administration board to provide services such as these; for that it has to depend on the local authority concerned. Surely one cannot expect the Bantu administration board to pay more for such services than the normal charges levied by the local authority. By levying higher charges for those services we would be imposing a tremendous burden on the Bantu community concerned, a burden which it will probably be unable to carry. Hon. members opposite should therefore be very careful with what they say about this.

While the previous clause, not being a complicated provision, was not discussed at any length with IANA and the U.M.E., this matter, on the other hand, was discussed in great detail, during which discussion many possibilities were suggested, especially by the U.M.E. It was agreed that the wording as it reads at present was fair, in other words, that, in the light of the fact that such services are essential, a local authority shall provide a Bantu administration board with such services at charges not exceeding the normal charges applicable in the area of that local authority. Another reason why this was acceptable to the U.M.E. is that no new principle is being introduced here, since it is a principle already included in the Urban Areas Act that a local authority shall not provide a Bantu area with water and sanitary services at. charges exceeding those applicable in that area. Surely this is logical. The hon. member should look at section 20 (2) of the Urban Areas Act. then he will see that this is a principle which has applied for years. Under the circumstances neither the U.M.E. nor the department expects this proviso to give rise to difficulties. I have already mentioned the case where there is a subsidy or a levy in respect of the provision of water, for instance. A local authority will not be able to supply a Bantu area with water works or sewerage works at a charge exceeding the charge applicable in its area. If a Bantu administration board would now have to pay more for such services because the services are subsidized for the Whites, it would create an extremely delicate problem, a problem we want to avoid by providing that an agreement has to be entered into. This is very clearly written into the clause. The clause also stipulates what has to be done when no agreement can be reached. However, we do not expect such cases to occur. In any case, when a charge is laid down for the Bantu administration area, it shall not exceed the current charge in the local area.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred us to the Urban Areas Act and pointed out that in that case too the municipality or local authority cannot charge more for services in a Bantu township. I would like to point out that the circumstances are quite different. As I understand the position, under the Bantu Urban Areas Act the local authority controls the Bantu townships, but here the local authority is losing all control of the townships. Once this board has been formed, all the authority is taken away from the local authority. The local authority could recoup itself in other ways; it could charge an extra rental for the houses which are let in the townships. It must be remembered that the local authority was building houses for its own Bantu employees serving the town. A local authority may now be called upon to furnish services for a township which is not necessarily housing its Bantu, and it may be more convenient for one municipality to supply the services than for another. I want to point out therefore that it is not only the local authority’s own citizens who are getting the advantages of the subsidy now but it will also be the citizens of other local authorities; they too will be getting the advantage of the subsidy furnished by another local authority. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that it may be necessary to review the subsidy. I take it that if a local authority can satisfy the board and the Minister as to how it subsidizes the service, that will be taken into consideration in assessing the amount which the board should pay the local authority, because it is quite wrong to expect the local authority now to provide services for new townships which, as I have said, may not even affect their area.

Mr. Chairman, there is just a small point which I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify for me. I think he knows that in certain cases local authorities do not charge the consumers in a location or Bantu village at all; they do not charge individuals. We know that in a case like that the local authority can, if it wishes to do so, debit this amount to the Bantu Revenue Account. But once the board has been formed there will be no Bantu Revenue Account. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me how this matter will be adjusted became it is specifically stated here that we are not allowed to charge more than we charged before? But in this case nothing was charged. Will the Deputy Minister please tell us how he intends to overcome this problem?

First I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei and other members on that side that, as regards this specific matter we are now discussing, Act No. 19 of 1954 provided in respect of the Resettlement Board and the Johannesburg City Council that no higher charge could be made for services provided to Meadowlands and Diepkloof. This has applied for many years now, and I can assure the hon. member that up to now there has never been any problem whatsoever concerning this specific matter of charges between the Resettlement Board and the Johannesburg City Council. I therefore take it that I can give hon. members the assurance that there is no earthly reason to suspect that this will create any problem in future.

But unlike the Municipality of Cape Town they charge for their services; the basis is different.

I have already replied to that. I think the hon. member should be satisfied with my reply.

Sir, the hon. member for Johannesburg North must please repeat his question to me, because I did not quite grasp it.

Sir, I will put my problem again. In the case of large local authorities, the position is that very often they do not charge anything at all to persons living in a Bantu village or township …

For services.

… for services. The Bill provides very specifically that a local authority cannot charge more than it charged before. In this case it charged nothing at all, but it had this remedy that it could, if it wished to do so, debit that amount against the Bantu Revenue Account. But with the establishment of the board there will be no Bantu Revenue Account. How will the board adjust this particular figure with the local authority? It is a very important point.

Surely it is clear that in this case the administration board will be debited with those fees.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 17:

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us why he finds it necessary to have such stringent penalties for what is, after all, only a civil offence. If he looks at clause 17 (4) (b), he will see it says that anyone found guilty of an offence of obstructing, hindering, resisting, or interfering with an inspector of the board who is carrying out his duties, can be fined an amount not exceeding R200. or sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. It seems a heavy maximum penalty for an offence which I consider to be merely a civil offence.

This question will probably crop up again when we come to clause 22 and I might just as well reply to it now. It must be very clear that this Bill does not intend to interfere with the courts in the least. It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding here between us and the Opposition, namely that this clause deals only with maximum penalties.

No.

It is not as simple as that. Therefore I can give the assurance right now that there is no intention except to do what is quite a normal thing. I have cited many Acts in the Second Reading where the same sort of provision is contained.

No, this is different.

The point is just that it is a maximum fine and penalty which is being laid down here, and if the hon. member thinks it is too heavy, there is nothing I can do except to say that the courts will have to decide about that. It is not a minimum fine or a minimum term of imprisonment which is being prescribed here.

It is a guide-line for the courts. Of course I know it is not a minimum penalty, but my objection is that such a stringent maximum penalty is laid down for what in effect is really a minor offence. It gives a guide-line to the courts to indicate that the offence is extremely serious and that the Government regards it as much more severe than it is. I think this is a very heavy penalty.

It deals with someone who falsely holds himself out to be an inspector. Surely this is not a minor offence; it is a very serious offence. Therefore one makes provision, in terms of this clause, for a serious offence, such as the one I mentioned, when an interpreter falsely holds himself out to be an inspector. Can you imagine what misery such a person might cause in the country or in a certain area? If you take that case, I think the hon. member for Houghton will have to concede to me that a penalty of a fine of R200 or six months’ imprisonment is really not a very heavy one for that sort of offence, and that is the maximum penalty. We must not misunderstand each other about this. The hon. member cannot tell me that when someone falsely holds himself out to be an inspector, possibly fooling hundreds of people before being brought to book, a fine of R200 or six months’ imprisonment is too heavy a penalty.

I am referring to (b).

Then I repeat that this is the maximum penalty and that the courts must use their own discretion in respect of minimum penalties. I therefore give the assurance that the intention here is not to deny the court the right to decide, in terms of that specific paragraph (b), not to impose the maximum penalty in a particular case, but a fine of R50, if it considers that it is not such a terrible offence and that it does not justify the maximum penalty. There is nothing to prevent the court from doing this. I just wanted to make the matter clear. Once again it is clear to me that the hon. members did not quite grasp the matter. This is only a maximum penalty, and the maximum penalty is not too heavy for the type of case I have now mentioned.

We are dealing here with the power of the board to appoint an inspector, and the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said that a case might occur of someone falsely holding himself out to be an inspector. I should like to ask him whether these inspectors would carry any certificate or card of appointment with them which they could produce on demand.

They wear a uniform.

Will these inspectors wear a uniform and, if so, what kind of uniform will it be? If they do not wear a uniform, will they have any certificate of appointment with them?

The position is that the necessary provision will be made by way of regulation for those inspectors to carry a document enabling them to identify themselves as inspectors. I assume they will wear uniforms. The size and the colour of the uniforms will depend upon various factors. I do not think I need go into this now, but the necessary provision will in fact be made by way of regulation.

I just want to get the record straight here. The hon. the Deputy Minister suggested that there is some confusion amongst the members on this side of the House. I submit that there is no confusion at all. As far as clause 17 is concerned, we have no quarrel whatsoever. I think that is quite clear. The point I made in discussing clause 22 (7), to which the hon. the Minister has referred, is that this method should have been adopted in clause 22. Parliament lays down what the penalty is going to be, but under clause 22 (7) the Minister will make a regulation laying down what the penalty will be. So, the hon. the Minister is confused, and I suggest that he gets the record straight.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 18:

We do not like this clause at all, Sir. Very onerous duties are placed on the local authorities, but if the boards are to operate at all, it seems that they will have to be able to call upon local authorities to fulfil certain duties and, if they do not do so, someone will have to intervene. Clause 18 gives the hon. the Minister the power to intervene. The consequences of non-compliance by a local authority with any request made to it by a board are certainly very drastic. If one looks at subsection (2) (a), (2) (b) and (2) (c) one sees that the board under the direction of the Minister can do the work itself. Then it can claim in a competent court against such local authority—I do not have a quarrel with that—or it can levy a special rate upon all rateable property within the area under the jurisdiction of such local authority, or it can use both those methods or it can take money payable by way of subsidy, grant or other moneys payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to that local authority. It can also act on a certificate by such board, as to the amount of the costs involved. The bare certificate of the board will be prima facie proof of the amount owing. This clause is far too vague. The hon. the Minister is given too much power. Under what circumstances will he act? He will act and I quote:

I submit that this is far too vague. The boards will have these local authorities at their mercy. We certainly cannot support a clause of such a nature.

Let me explain this matter to hon. members Opposite once more. They are very fond of making the allegation that “the Minister takes so much power”. This is really not true. This particular clause, clause 18, formed the subject of protracted and repeated discussions between the United Municipal Executive and my Department. I was present at most of those discussions. This particular clause has been re-drafted and modified repeatedly in order to give the necessary satisfaction. Right at the outset, when these discussions were started, we accepted the principle in discussions with the representative body of the local authorities, i.e. the U.M.E., that there should be machinery in this Bill in terms of which, in the event of a local authority refusing to render the necessary co-operation, it would be made possible for the administration board and the local authority to meet one another in some way or other. That is the principle that has been accepted. It did not take us very long to come to a second principle either, i.e. that we should adhere as far as possible to the principle in regard to a matter of which we have some experience, viz. the Resettlement Board as well as the principles laid down in the Urban Areas Act of 1945. That is the second aspect of the matter on which we reached agreement fairly quickly. But then the same happened as had happened in regard to clause 10 (10). This is a delicate and difficult matter. What we have here now is an administration board which is a statutory body. The administration board has to rely on the co-operation of the various local authorities within that administration area. There would be no problem if these bodies would co-operate with one another. But—and this is the important point—while we were thrashing out this matter in great detail, the United Municipal Executive wanted to know how we were going to settle the matter if, for example, the administration board were to act quite unreasonably in the demands it was making on a local authority? Now, we should bear in mind that no administration boards have as yet been established and that we should now try and place ourselves in the position an administration board may possibly find itself. On the other hand, what is the administration board going to do if a local authority were to act in a deliberate and unreasonable way? We may then find ourselves in the position of being unable to proceed any further as a result of disputes about technical points. The local authorities which were members of the U.M.E. then said that there was only one way left in which a matter such as this may possibly be solved. That is for the Minister to act as the necessary arbiter, because somebody will have to act as the arbiter, when we are finding ourselves in a deadlock situation between an administration board and a local authority. This machinery was then written into the Bill as it is found in clause 18 (2) (a), (b) and (c), which the hon. member for Transkei referred to. I readily concede that when one looks at sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), as they are in the Bill, the provisions seem to be quite drastic. But hon. members should remember that the U.M.E. and those involved in this matter, agreed that this was the correct course of action, because this is also the principle in respect of the Resettlement Board as well as the one contained in the Urban Areas Act. We would not like to be accused of usurping here more powers than is necessary. As a matter of fact, this is not what is happening here, because we were asked that someone should act as the arbiter in this respect. And it is only fair that the Minister will be the arbiter. From the nature of the case, the Minister will, in the first place, act with great caution and with a soft hand to try to bring about the necessary agreement between the administration board and the local authority, and, in the second place, if no agreement can be reached, he will apply sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) with a soft hand. We do not want to cause these people to be at loggerheads with one another. We should very much like to see the necessary co-operation among these people. The provisions of clause 18 (2) (a), (b) and (c) will be applied in this spirit. I really hope hon. members on the opposite side of the House are satisfied now.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with a hon. Deputy Minister who, I must say, has been most reasonable in most of his arguments. Experience has taught us, however, that we are not always dealing with somebody who is as reasonable as the hon. the Deputy Minister is today.

The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about co-operation. Of course, we want cooperation; everybody wants co-operation. He talks about applying these provisions “met ’n sagte hand”. But, what the hon. the Deputy Minister implies by talking about “’n sagte hand” is that there is a mailed fist which is hidden in this particular provision. It is not only hidden in this provision, but also in the other provisions of this Bill. What the Opposition is doing today, is pointing out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we have seen this mailed fist which is hidden in this Bill. If we look at the provisions of clause 16 (2), which we have already dealt with, we find that such local authority shall provide certain services such as to supply water and electricity and receive water or sewage. It also has some responsibilities in regard to roads. They are compelled to do so. What do we find in the event of a dispute? I sincerely hope that there are not going to be disputes, but when we look at the provisions as they exist today we see that there can be cause for dispute. What is going to be the position when a dispute does arise? If we look at the provisions of clause 18, we see that if a local authority neglects to perform any act, or if it has done it in such a manner that “in the opinion of the board it is unsatisfactory”, it then applies to the hon. the Minister. The Minister arbitrarily then may determine, after consultation with the Administrator, what conditions he feels would be correct. Then, in the event of further dispute, we come to subsection (2) (a) whereby he can go to court. So far so good. We accept that in the event of a dispute between what the Minister may decide and the local authority may decide, such a dispute shall be settled by action in a competent court. Then, however, he has added the words “or by levying a special rate upon all rateable property ...” to recover the amount. These are the points we are opposing. We are opposing the fact that the Minister can arbitrarily go ahead and do the work at the expense of the local authorities. Then he does not go to court, or he need not necessarily go to court, in order to recover these expenses which he has had. He can then arbitrarily levy a special rate on his own accord. This is the power that he is taking. This is the mailed fist which is hidden herein. We hope that he will use the medium of paragraph (a) to recover the money, but he is now asking this Committee to give him the power to arbitrarily decide on his own to recover the amount, how much shall be recovered arid to recover it by levying a rate. Furthermore, if he finds he cannot levy a rate on the properties within the area of jurisdiction of the local authorities, he can go to some competent authority which pays a subsidy to these local authorities and deduct from that subsidy, grant or other moneys payable the amount he wants for the work which he has done. This is completely and totally arbitrary. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been reasonable, but I think he must also be reasonable when he considers this. In his reasonableness he must also understand why we are opposed to the arbitrary action which the Minister will be empowered to deal with, because it need not necessarily be this Minister; it could be one of his successors. We do not know what the attitude of his successors will be and that is why we are opposed to these provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to enlarge upon my argument in an attempt to convince the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, because I think I have convinced the other members already. In any case, I sincerely hope so. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is really seeing “spoke” in this instance where he does not have to see any. The argument I want to advance is that if the hon. member looks at the Natives Resettlement Act, No. 19 of 1954, which was enacted 17 years ago, and he reads …

We opposed it.

The question is not whether the hon. members on that side opposed it or not, because they have opposed every good thing which has been requested here! The question is how it was implemented through the years. If the hon. member looks at that Act and at the same time at clause 18 (2) (a), (b) and (c), he will see that section 29 (2) (a) of that Act reads “by action in a competent court against the council”, whereas clause 18 (2) (a) of this Bill reads, “by action in a competent court against such local authority”. He will also see that paragraph (b) of the Natives Resettlement Act reads …

Which section was that?

Section 29 (2) (a) of the Natives Resettlement Act. The hon. member will find it interesting if he compares the two with each other. If you look at paragraph (b) of the Natives Resettlement Act, you will see that it reads, “by levying a special rate upon all rateable property within the area under the jurisdiction of the council”, whereas clause 18 (2) (b) of the Bill with which we are dealing now reads, “by levying a special rate upon all rateable property within the area under the jurisdiction of such local authority”. Section 29 (2) (c) of the Bantu Resettlement Act reads as follows: “By deduction from any subsidy, grant or other moneys payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or payable by the Administrator to the Council, …,” whereas clause 18 (2) (c) of the Bill reads as follows: “by obtaining payment from the competent authority by way of deduction from any subsidy, grant or other moneys payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or payable by such Administrator to such local authority”. If such a situation as the one the hon. member referred to should arise, and I reiterated that I hoped such a situation would never arise, one will naturally go out of one’s way to deal with it by trying to bring the parties together. If you cannot manage to come to an agreement the situation will be dealt with in terms of clause 18 (2) (a). Only if it is impossible to solve the situation will we use these provisions. The argument I therefore advance is that this provision has been in operation, as I have pointed out, for 17 years without any difficulties ever occurring and I therefore want to ask the hon. member to accept it. There is no necessity for not doing so especially in view of the fact that the U.M.E. has accepted it unanimously.

Who accepted it?

The United Municipal Executive.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that two wrongs do not make a right. I know that this provision is contained in the Bantu Resettlement Act, but we on this side also opposed it then.

Surely what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister not merely provide for responsibility by the municipality or local authority in the same way that he does for the board? In clause 19 it is provided—

If a municipality or local authority has to collect from the board, I take it they will have to proceed along the normal course and sue, because how else can they recover? I suppose that is the only way they will be able to recover. A local authority with all its obligations will not have the privileges and advantages given to a board. Why can the two authorities not be treated in the same manner? That is what we want to know.

Your objection is noted.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei has pointed out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we opposed this provision in the Bantu Resettlement Act. It is therefore no argument to say that we must now accept it, because it has never been applied.

That was only one argument.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is a reasonable man and he is now in a reasonable frame of mind and I want to put something to him. In respect of clause 18 (2) (a) where the board may recover by action in a competent court the costs incurred by it, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that that court would be in a position to award the amount claimed to the board. Through the processes of that court the board would be empowered to recover the amounts in terms of paragraph (c) not by obtaining payment from the source, but from a subsidy which would be paid to the board, as is stated in the Bantu Resettlement Act. Why does the hon. the Deputy Minister then want paragraphs (b) and (c) as well? Surely if the court in its wisdom will order that the board may recover the amount which has been expended, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not need any further power. Why does he then want to by-pass the court? It is accepted in this country that a court will settle such a dispute between any two persons or any two bodies. Here, however, because it happens to be the hon. the Minister who is involved, because the board is appointed by him, he now wants to circumvent the normal processes of the law in this country and how it is applied and to take the power arbitrarily to decide on his own. Not only does he want to decide on his own what should be done and how much should be paid, but he also wants the power to carry out such a judgment by the levying of these rates or by collecting from source the amount expended out of any subsidy or grant which is due.

Mr. Chairman, I will cut my argument short. We do not want to circumvent the courts here. Not at all. One may have to deal with a local authority which is not creditworthy. What are you going to do then? We are not trying to circumvent the court, but provision must be made for all eventualities and that is all that is happening here. I want to repeat that this provision was unanimously accepted by the U.M.E.

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

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, we are definitely opposing this clause and shall divide on it. This clause will give the Minister very wide powers to govern by regulation. In replying to the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Minister said that the Minister was really taking no more powers than the local authorities had. Well, I submit that is not so. He takes over all the powers of the local authorities to make regulations. In subsection (1) (b) he takes over all the powers of the local authority. Anything they can do he can do better. In subsection (2) he goes on to take further powers. In replying to the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Minister said that paragraph (f) of subsection (3) really only refer to the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). I do not agree with him. I am sorry, I cannot accept that interpretation of the law at all. Paragraph (e) will give the Minister power to make regulations with regard to the distribution of Bantu labour. I submit that under this clause he could prohibit Bantu labour from going to a certain area within the jurisdiction of the board or he could give permission to go outside the area. He could also give permission for different categories to go outside the area or for different categories to stay within the area. He will take the power over the board. I know the Deputy Minister will get up and say that he will only do it after discussion with the board. But the fact remains that he can do it even against the wishes of the board.

In terms of paragraph (f) he can do what he likes. It has nothing to do with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e). It reads:

If this only covered paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) it would not have been necessary to have paragraph (0. Why would paragraph (f) be necessary if all he is doing, is covering those matters dealt with by paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e)? I submit this is to allow him to make regulations in regard to anything which he considers necessary.

No, you are wrong.

I am sorry I am not wrong. I have discussed it with other lawyers and they do not agree with the Deputy Minister at all. The Deputy Minister read out the opinion of his law advisers. I cannot find any lawyer who agrees with the opinion of his law advisers. I submit they are quite wrong. It is no good discussing the matter any further with the Minister. He is going to stick by the opinion given by the law advisers.

But I say that the Minister misunderstood subsection (7). My objection to subsection (7) was that the power of the Minister to provide for penalties should not have been done by regulation but should have been a provision in this Bill passed by this Parliament. Dealing with minimum penalties, I said that the Minister in terms of this regulation could lay down the minimum penalty. Parliament could not intervene. The Minister already would have done it and that would be the end.

I give you the assurance that he will not do it.

Oh, yes. But the point is he has the power to do it. We object to giving the Minister the power. The Minister has the power in terms of other Acts, but that does not make it right. We are definitely opposed to this power being given to the Minister.

This clause, with clause 11, is the crux of the whole legislation, namely the authority given to the board and to the Minister, and the taking away of all authority from the local authorities. Local authorities have had experience in administering Bantu townships over the years, and have done it successfully. We will definitely oppose this clause.

I should just like to remind the hon. member that he has not moved his amendment.

But in terms of my assurance I think he can withdraw it.

No, I did not move my amendment, Sir. I am just going to oppose the whole clause.

I agree with everything said by the hon. member for Transkei. I, too, consider that this clause gives the hon. the Deputy Minister very far-reaching powers indeed. I am not a lawyer but one has only to read the clause to see that that is so. It lays down that the hon. the Minister may make regulations in respect of … and then it details very wide powers indeed, including those affecting the movement of Bantu labourers between different areas and “the distribution of Bantu labourers between different categories of employment in any such area”. What is meant by “distribution”? He will, sort of, be dealing out labourers to the various administration boards’ areas and different categories of employers. One should read this in conjunction with clause 3 in terms of which the no. I man on the board will be the man who knows something about the needs of employers of farm labour in the administrative area of the board. If I look at this clause in the light of this I become very suspicious indeed. What powers are the hon. the Deputy Minister going to take unto himself when he wants to shunt Bantu labourers off to do farm work when they want to stay within the administration board’s area and do other types of work? On the other hand, if he does not intend using such powers, why then did he write it into this legislation?

Sir, I do not like these wide powers to make regulations. Already there is the tendency amongst the Government to consider that it needs complete control over the number of labourers coming in and going out and the number that can be employed by any employer—in fact, we have endless laws on the Statute Book in terms of which the Government virtually dictates to employers and entrepreneurs what use they may or may not take of the available labour. This clause, I consider, is even going further and, consequently, I shall certainly oppose it.

In the White Paper on this Bill there appears this sentence in reference to clause 22: “Moreover, additional powers are granted to the Minister to make regulations.” The hon. member for Transkei and the hon. member for Houghton already dealt with the extent of these powers. The aspect of this clause which worries me is the stipulation that “the Minister may furthermore make regulations as to the movement of Bantu labourers between different boards’ administration areas”. The hon. the Deputy Minister has told us over and over again that the prime object of this legislation is to permit the free movement of Bantu labour. This aspect we shall discuss further when we come to a later clause. The stipulation of this clause goes on “… and the distribution of Bantu labourers between different categories of employment in any such area”. This is the point; this is really an aspect I do not like at all, especially in the light of two speeches that were made at the Second Reading. Let me first of all deal with an interjection which was made by the hon. member for Brakpan while I was speaking. I was referring to his speech wherein he said that there were a number of Bantu in urban areas who were unemployed but who refused to accept employment in, as he put it, the Railways, Escom and the building industry. When I referred to this during the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Brakpan said by way of interjection: “If they won’t work they must get out.” He took great exception when I took up this point and suggested that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in terms of this Bill was going to take the power to compel Bantu to work in certain categories. If they did not work, then the threat of the hon. member for Brakpan would come into operation, if they did not accept employment in those categories, then the hon. member’s threat would come into operation and the Bantu would be removed from the urban areas. But, Sir, it goes further than that The hon. the Deputy Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, had in his hands the dreadful task of trying to justify the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, and this is what he said (Col. 2422 of Hansard of 10th March of this year)—

How does the hon. the Deputy Minister decide whether the wrong Bantu is in the wrong category of work? Is he really applying what ex-Deputy Minister Vosloo implied was being applied and which was denied by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. That is that Bantu are now being categorized and classified in certain trades and certain spheres of employment. In terms of this provision he can now make regulations to the effect that if a Bantu is once registered at the central bureau as a farm labourer, he will not be permitted to enter into the building industry, to take employment as a domestic or to take employment in the field of commerce? Is this what the hon. the Deputy Minister is really asking for in terms of this? Is he going to take the right now to classify them once and for all and then apply the threat of the hon. member for Brakpan that if they do not accept employment in that category, they must be returned to the homelands? Is this the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in terms of this clause? I sincerely hope that he can give us a reasonable explanation because I am very suspicious of this.

I accept that hon. members opposite are not going to support this clause and that they are going to vote against it. Therefore I am not going to devote too much time to this specific clause because it is quite obvious that we will not see eye to eye on it.

With reference to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has just said, I want to tell him that I am not, nor is the Minister, going to categorize the Bantu into different categories, and the board is not going to do it either. The Bantu do so themselves; they come forward and say: “I want to do this type of work or that type of work.” Hon. members opposite are reading things into this clause which simply do not exist. With regard to subsection (3) (e) to which the hon. member for Houghton has also referred in regard to the movement of Bantu labourers between different Administration Board areas, why does he not read subsection (6) which makes it perfectly clear that any regulations made under subsection (3) (e) shall have effect only to the extent to which it is not inconsistent with the Bantu Labour Act, 1964. The Minister’s hands are therefore bound to a very large extent and in any event the Minister cannot, in terms of subsection (6), go beyond the terms of the relevant Act —in this case the Bantu Labour Act. Why then does he come with that story? My law advisers are of the unanimous opinion that the provisions of clause 22 with regard to regulations limit the Minister’s power to a very large extent, and I am entirely in agreement with them. When clause 5 was discussed in this House a couple of days ago I pointed out that it was not possible for me under clause 22 to make regulations to direct a board as to how it should go about its business under clause 5.

I could not do it. I had to move an amendment before I had the power under clause 22 to make the necessary regulations to direct a board as to how it should go about its business with regard to in camera meetings. So the point I want to make, completely contrary to what hon. members opposite argue, is that the powers of the Minister are limited in terms of clause 22.

Lastly, I want to repeat what I said during the Second Reading speech, and I am certainly not going to cover all that ground again, but the fact of the matter is that with regard to subsection (3) (f) of this supposedly very wide clause, our interpretation is that “generally any other matter in regard to which he may consider it necessary to make regulations in order to ensure the effective administration of this Act” refers only to matters dealt with in subsection (3) (a) to (e) and that we cannot go beyond those subsections. But we can have general items which are not covered by the wording of subsection (3) (a) to (e), but it must be related to paragraphs (a) to (e).

It says “any other matter”.

Yes, any other matter, but relative to paragraphs (a) to (e). But I will never be able to convince the hon. members, so I think it is just as well that we vote on this clause now.

The hon. the Deputy Minister believes that the correct interpretation of this clause 22 (3) (f) is that it limits him to the five matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). [Interjections.] Well, it will be interesting to see whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will in fact be able to administer the Bill in that way and stick to that interpretation, because I think one has only to read the wording again to realize that the words go further. Paragraph (a) deals with the regulation and control of land owned by a board, (b) deals with the powers, functions and duties of inspectors, (c) deals with the procedure relating to the calling for and the acceptance of tenders for the execution of work, (d) deals with the adoption or establishment and maintenance by a board or by a board jointly of a medical aid fund and (e) deals with the movement of Bantu labourers.

May I ask a question? In terms of what you have just said, in terms of that subsection, can I make regulations in regard to in camera meetings, in other words with regard to meetings, while there is a specific item in the legislation dealing with meetings? The reply is obviously no, and you know it just as well as I do.

The reply is obviously no, and that is why I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister sticks to his interpretation, as advanced to him by his law advisers. I have now read out the five subjects set out in (a) to (e) and his interpretation is that the general powers given in (f) entitle him only to make regulations which are related to those five matters, dealing with land, inspectors, tenders, medical aid funds and the distribution of labour. Now, quite clearly, if they are of a like kind to that, he certainly could not deal with a procedure by the board in camera. Therefore it little surprises one that the terms of subsection (3) (f) are so wide. I want to read this paragraph again so that everyone in this Committee can hear it. It reads—

It specifically says “any other matter … to ensure the effective administration of this Act”. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself said that he would want the power to make regulations about hearings in camera. There is nothing at all in paragraphs (a) to (e) which deal with the question of procedures of the board at all. It deals with land, inspectors, tenders, medical aid funds and the distribution of labour. Therefore I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must surely see that the very clear wording of paragraph (f) is extremely general in that it says “… in regard to which he may consider it necessary to make regulations in order to ensure the effective administration of this Act”.

Now, it is probably not worth arguing it at any great length because it seems so absolutely clear. It refers to other regulations to ensure the effective administration of this Act. There are countless things in this legislation and its administration which clearly are quite unrelated to the five subjects dealt with in the remaining subsections of this clause.

But why is paragraph (f) paragraph (f) and not subsection (4)? Then your argument would have been valid.

No, because subsection (4) is dealing with a special situation which our legal system requires and our courts have directed attention to, namely that when you make different regulations in respect of different areas and different people, etc., then you must have a specific provision to that effect. That is the point. Where you differentiate, the courts have repeatedly held regulations to be ultra vires, etc., because there is no power given to treat matters differently. That is why subsection (4) has been included. However, I believe that we have clearly established that paragraph (f) does indeed give extremely wide powers to make regulations and not only in respect of those matters to that set out in paragraphs (a) to (e).

Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. member for Pinelands has said. I really cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot see this argument. There is, however, no point in my pressing this any further.

I want to come back to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his reply just now. Unless I misunderstood him, he said that he was not going to classify Bantu labour. That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said to me just now. May I remind him of what he said in reply to the Second Reading debate which I quoted a moment ago. It appears in Hansard, column 2422. The hon. the Deputy Minister then said that the whole matter—-

They are classified by their own choice. Can’t you understand that?

No, Sir. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot hide behind that. This I am afraid we cannot accept The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that he has a bureau in Pretoria where all the Bantu registered by employers are registered. He knows as well as I do that in that bureau they are classified. The whole point here is whether or not that classification is permanent. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that. This was the cause of the trouble with the farm Bantu in the Weenen area. He knows that. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister playing politics and trying to hide. He knows that. We know this as well. The crux of the whole matter is that this is what he is going to do. And when you tie this to the threat of the hon. member for Brakpan, that if a Bantu does not accept employment he must be repatriated …

What must you do with him? Must he sit there?

If he has obtained rights under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, what is he going to do?

Must he be unemployed all the time?

If he is in Johannesburg and he has the right to be in Johannesburg under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act who is that hon. member or that hon. Deputy Minister to compel that Bantu to accept certain work? Hon. members must not forget that the areas of the board will include rural areas and Bantu areas as well. Let us just go back to when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this measure. In Hansard of 2nd March, column 1963, he said:

… this Bill should therefore be seen as a genuine attempt to achieve an efficient administrative system which will in the main have to meet three requirements, namely—

1. (a) to provide greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish a more effective administrative machinery; … and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

That last point is the important one. Yet here we have the hon. member for Brakpan saying what he does, after the hon. the Deputy Minister talked about treating them as people and not just as labour units, as ciphers, to be moved around at the whim and fancy of some member on that side of the House, or some members of a board who will be appointed by the Nationalist Party. This is the whole crux of the matter and it is important. This Committee is now being asked to approve that the hon. the Deputy Minister be given this power. This is another reason why we will vote against this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. L: Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse. R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt. H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder. J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—42: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 26:

Mr. Chairman, clause 26 is the clause which is passed off by the hon. the Deputy Minister in the explanatory memorandum which he so kindly placed before this House when he introduced this legislation, in the following terms:

In that simple manner the hon. the Deputy Minister disposes of the whole question of what is contained in clause 26. But what do we find in clause 26 of this Bill? We find that clause 26 deals with the right of Bantu to remain in certain prescribed areas. To the hon. the Deputy Minister this might be a simple matter, something to be lightly passed over. But I want to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that to the Bantu, this is one of the most important aspects of their whole lives, particularly to the urban Bantu, those who have obtained certain rights to remain in the urban areas notwithstanding the threats of the hon. member for Brakpan, irrespective of whether they work or not. They have obtained these rights in terms of section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, a section which was added to the Act by the late Dr. Verwoerd in 1952. The late Dr. Verwoerd then made a promise to the urban Bantu people, which was quoted earlier by the hon. member for Jeppes, namely that they would be allowed to remain there if they qualified and that their families would also be allowed to remain as long as they are qualified.

I quoted a little earlier the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill where he said that his prime object was to allow for the greater mobility of Bantu labour. This is a very laudable object and something with which we have no grouse whatsoever, as we have been at pains to point out throughout the whole debate. But when the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced clause 26 he said—I quote from Hansard, column 1970:

This is once again a very laudable intention and something which this side of the House would support. Unfortunately, we find that there is once again a sting in the tail, and in this case something has been left out of clause 26. Clause 26, briefly, allows that any Bantu who is qualified in terms of section 10 (1) (a), (b) or (c) of the Urban Areas Act may move from the prescribed area in which he is so qualified to any other area within the jurisdiction of a board when it is created, without losing those rights, until such time as he qualifies in another area and is transferred there. In other words, he is not being prejudiced at all. The point that the hon. the Deputy Minister has lost sight of is the fact that there is a fourth category of Bantu who is employed in the urban areas, who is there for a specific purpose and who has obtained special permission to be there to work and to reside there. This is outside what we should possibly call the fifth category of Bantu labour and that is the migrant or the contract labourer who is there for a specific period to do a specific job and then goes back again. I refer to those who have obtained permission in terms of section 10 (1) (d) of the Urban Areas Act, which reads, “permission so to remain has been granted by an officer … due regard being had to the availability of accommodation in a Bantu residential area”. These Bantu have been given approval to stay there.

Today we find that many thousands of such Bantu are in the urban areas in the process of qualifying in terms of section 10 (1) (d) to remain there. Some of them have been living there for years and some of them have been living there for 9 years and 11 months. They have not yet qualified because they have not worked for one employer for a full ten years. Some have been there for 13 or 14 years, but have not yet qualified in terms of the provision which allows them to qualify for permanent residence in the prescribed area once they have resided there for 15 years and have been employed during that period. Those Bantu are not taken care of. In the light of the thinking of the Nationalist Government, what the hon. the Deputy Minister has included in the provision of clause 26 of this Bill, is a concession to the Bantu and is a privilege which he is extending to those who have qualified under section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c). I wonder why the hon. the Deputy Minister has not allowed that same privilege to those Bantu who are in the process of qualifying and those who have legitimately the right to be in the prescribed area. They have the legitimate right to be there, because they have obtained authority in terms of section 10 (1) (d), of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. With those comments I am going to move the amendment as it stands under my name on the Order Paper, and I would like to hear the reaction of the hon. the Deputy Minister to this amendment, which I now move—

Order! I have studied these amendments very carefully. They seek to extend the scope of the Bill to a class of Bantu not contemplated at the Second Reading. Therefore I must rule them out of order.

Arising out of that ruling, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a simple question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. It therefore means that Bantu falling under section 10 (1) (d) of the Bantu Urban Areas Act will not be given the privilege of mobility. If he is in one prescribed area, he will not be able to move to another.

Mr. Chairman, I abide by your ruling, but if you will permit me I would like to reply to the very important question which has been put by the hon. member for Jeppes. Then I will also, in a way, reply to the points which have been made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District.

*Perhaps I should rather do so in Afrikaans. This is a very delicate matter, and I therefore want to take this opportunity to make certain things very clear in regard to this question. In the first place, all section 10 (1) (d) cases are subject to permission. All of these are, as we call them, permission cases, i.e. as regards Bantu for visits lasting longer than 72 hours and for permission for work. This is the first point which should be understood very well. Therefore, this is quite different from section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) cases. The second point is that as far as employment is concerned, the permission is granted in such a way that the Bantu concerned may work in various prescribed areas within the area of an administration board. This is a direct answer to the question put by the hon. member for Jeppes. They will therefore enjoy the same privileges as are enjoyed by section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) cases, i.e. to work in the greater administrative areas.

What about their qualifications?

I shall deal with that in a moment. I want to go further. Without exception these are employment concessions. Conditions may also be laid down in granting concessions in respect of section 10 (2), and it is a general condition that Bantu in the homelands are admitted under contract to a specific employer for a period not exceeding 12 months. If such a Bantu does not remain so employed, it stands to reason that his permission is no longer valid, for he is a 12-month contract Bantu, the so-called migrant labourer to whom the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District referred. That is my second point. In regard to this matter there is also a third point which I want to make. At the moment a Bantu who finds himself in a prescribed area, may in terms of section 10 (1) (d) only build up a qualification in one prescribed area. The contract worker from the homelands who is on a 12-month contract, cannot do this in any case, for he is only here on a contract for 12 months. Therefore, that is very clear. Now I want to say most emphatically that this position is going to remain unchanged. If I wanted to change it, we would have had to amend section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, as was very clearly and rightly pointed out by you, Mr. Chairman. However, I am not doing that, and therefore the position remains absolutely unchanged. I would be very sorry if there were to be any misunderstanding in this regard, either in this House or outside. The reason why I would be sorry, is that this is a matter which affects the Bantu very closely. There should, therefore, be no misunderstanding in this regard. Whereas I have already said that such Bantu, i.e. section 10 (1) (d) cases, may take up employment in the greater administration area and that in as far as housing is available they may be provided with it so as to make it possible for them to take advantage of this greater labour mobility, and that their position in respect of qualifications remains unchanged, I now want to say most emphatically that nobody is being deprived of any rights. No Bantu is being deprived of any rights in terms of clause 26, as it is before the House at the moment. I hope that I have now made the matter very clear and that there will not be, or need not be, any misunderstanding in this regard, for I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this.

Before calling on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District to speak, I want to point out that I have, simply and solely for the convenience of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, allowed the hon. the Deputy Minister to discuss the amendment which I ruled out of order. However, I cannot allow any discussion on this amendment which I ruled out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your kindness in allowing the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply. However. I feel that, although my amendment has been ruled out of order, it will still be competent for this Committee to discuss the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention and what he really means by the provisions of this clause. It is quite clear from the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister that it is not his intention to allow for greater mobility of movement when it comes to those persons who are in the process of qualifying in terms of section 10 (1) (b) without their losing—I am afraid it is rather difficult to describe in one word—portion of their qualifying period. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister knows what I am talking about. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us an inkling of his thinking on this point. Why did he not, when he drew the Bill up initially, extend it to section 10 (1) (d)?

But I told you a moment ago I would have had to change section 10 of the Urban Bantu Areas Act.

Not necessarily so, with respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister. As he knows, I raised this question with him in the Second Reading debate of this Bill; but he failed to reply to my questions in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He knows that I have certain reservations about his intention in this particular clause. It is a feeling which I and other members on this side have that this Government is in some way endeavouring to circumvent the provisions of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act.

It is not true.

I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister has come here with a clause which allows the Bantu to have this greater mobility. As far as those Bantu who are qualified in terms of section 10 (1) (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, this has not been a circumvention. But I do believe that it is unfair now for the hon. the Deputy Minister to leave out those who are in the process of qualifying. This is why I believe that it is an attempt to circumvent the provisions of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. In terms of section 10, Bantu may still qualify. The door has not been closed. The register is not full. Further Bantu can qualify. But the hon. the Deputy Minister is making it no easier for the Bantu to qualify in terms of section 10. I grant him what he said, namely nobody is losing any rights or privileges which he might have had up to now. Nobody is worse off than he was before. But surely, it was in the heart of the hon. the Deputy Minister to make them better off? Surely, Sir, it should have been his object, according to what he said when he introduced the Bill, to make it easier for these people to continue to supply the labour which White South Africa requires and which the Bantu themselves require. But he is not doing it. This is why I am still suspicious that in this respect, anyway, clause 26 is going to circumvent the intention of the late Dr. Verwoerd when he introduced section 10. It was not his intention to close the door. In fact, he deliberately left the door open. The reason why he put subsection (d) into section 10 (1) of the Bantu Urban Areas Act is to allow further Bantu to qualify. But now the hon. the Deputy Minister does not make it any easier for them to qualify. He does not make it any more difficult—I concede that point—but he does not make it any easier for them to do so. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister could tell us why he has not made it any easier.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that there are a lot of us who are suspicious of his—I do not mean this personally—and the Government’s intentions with regard to section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, especially if one considers statements such as that which was made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to Sabra in September, 1963, when he said—

I am sure the hon. the Minister, when he said that, implied that he did not believe that these Bantu should have any rights in the White areas at all. He has said so before. The only right that they should have is the right to sell their labour. Coming to the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, I promised to let him have this quotation. On the 20th June, 1969 (Hansard, column 8750) the hon. the Deputy Minister said—

He then went on to say—

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to discuss this matter very widely, although this discussion goes beyond the scope of the Bill. Actually, the hon. member is discussing a new principle, which I have already ruled out of order.

Up to now we have been discussing the clauses of this Bill on a very high level, and the last thing I want is that in dealing here with the last clause, i.e. clause 26 which deals with a very thorny matter, we should now descend to a level which I have sought to avoid throughout this discussion. But the hon. member has now made statements here which make it difficult for me to react to them in a calm and composed manner. Consequently I am going to say as little as possible about them. However, what I do want to say, is that when the hon. member claims that this legislation, and specifically clause 26, does not make it any easier for the Bantu to have greater mobility of labour, then, with all due respect, I do not have at my command words to say what I think of such a view. All I can say, is that when he speaks that way, he is speaking about things of which he has no understanding or knowledge. The legal draftsmen worded clause 26 the way it was done here with the specific intention of making it possible for section 10 (I) (a), (b) and (c) cases to sell their labour in the greater administration area, and to sell it easily. That is the intention, and here it has been recorded that way in black and white. Any person with intelligence will read it that way. I challenge hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Houghton, to prove the contrary. But now the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has made this statement. For whose ears does he say it? If it remained within these four walls, it could still be in order. But for whose benefit is he saying that this legislation does not make it possible for the Bantu to sell their labour more easily, and that we are circumventing section 10 by these means?

He did not say that.

I did not say that.

I regard this as being the most irresponsible statement I have heard in a very long time, a statement which I find difficult to discuss in a cool and composed manner. I therefore want to register my strongest protest, not only against that hon. member, but also against the Opposition for the statements he made. They are not calculated to promote good relations in this country. As far as section 10 (1) (d) cases are concerned, I read out here a written document in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Jeppes. I did so because I did not want there to be any misunderstanding whatsoever in this regard. After all, I very clearly said that a section 10 (1) (d) Bantu who at present finds himself in the prescribed area with permission, would, with permission, be able to sell his labour in the greater administration area, and also that as regards housing such a Bantu would be able to obtain it, if it were available. In the light of this I object to the fact that the hon. member regarded clause 26 in the spirit in which he did. I am honestly not able to make the position any clearer, and I trust that hon. members opposite are satisfied with the unambiguous assurance I gave in regard to clause 26. A great deal of attention was given to clause 26, and here in this legislation it has been recorded in very clear language for everybody to read.

I am quite certain that the hon. the Deputy Minister has misunderstood the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District does not dispute, nor does anybody on this side, that there will be a greater mobility as a result of this law.

But he said that I was not making the position easier.

I think he was referring solely to the section 10 (d) cases.

But I have already given the Committee an assurance in that regard.

Order! Section 10 (d) is not under consideration now.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. But I think that since this clause affects the whole position of the urban Bantu, it does indirectly have an effect upon the section (10 (d) cases as well. Sir, I am still a little uncertain, perhaps due to ignorance, as to what the position is, even though the hon. the Deputy Minister has tried to make it clear. He has made it plain that even the section 10 (1) (d) cases will be able to work in an administration board’s areas and he has made it clear that they can even get housing there.

Because they may be working there with permission. Section 10 (1) (d) makes it clear that they must have permission.

Am I right in thinking that the hon. the Deputy Minister does accept that as the law stands at present, section 10 (1) (d) people can still qualify to become section 10 (1) (b) people?

I have made it clear that that remains unaltered.

As the law stands at present, if a Bantu living in a certain prescribed area moves to another, that is to say, if this Bill is passed into law, he forfeits his right to live in the original area. I do not quite understand how the hon. the Deputy Minister will achieve what he intends to achieve, namely to allow section 10 (b) rights to be acquired by these people who have not yet acquired them and that they may yet move outside the original prescribed area into the larger administration area. If the hon. the Deputy Minister could deal with that, it would certainly remove a misunderstanding or clear up a point which I am not able to follow.

Sir, I have already explained what the position is, and I think with all respect to the hon. member, for whom I have a very high regard, he must accept that it is better to leave the position as it is, especially in view of the Chairman’s ruling. As I have explained, the status quo remains in terms of section 10 (1) (d) of the Urban Areas Act. There is really nothing more that I can add.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause Twenty-seven put and the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—41: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is not the first time that legislation in regard to the sale of land on instalments has been before this House. On the fate of previous attempts at legislation in this particular connection, I do not now want to elaborate here. Those attempts are, however, an indication that the need for legislation to regulate legal relationships between the parties that have an interest in contracts of purchase and sale of land under which the purchase price is payable in instalments, has already been felt for many years. Previous attempts to place legislation in regard to the subject in question on the Statute Book probably failed because it is very difficult to regulate legal relationships with regard to these particular types of contract by means of legislation. Although most legal rules with regard to commitments which result from contracts arise out of usage, and those legal rules have been put to the test through years of application, the parties to such contracts still find themselves in situations which in time become more and more complicated. The rate at which economic development has taken place, has in many cases led to its being possible to regard existing legal rules as being inadequate. Apart from that the practice has developed that sellers of land on instalments, as in other cases, make use of standard contract forms.

These standard contract forms often contain provisions in terms of which the purchaser relinquishes that protection afforded him by common law. In many cases the purchaser does not read the contents of the contract and, even if he does read them, he does not for the most part understand the implications of certain clauses appearing in the contract. If the purchaser does in fact have objections to any term or condition included in the contract, he will often be swayed by the assurance of the seller that the danger he envisages is not a real one. Because all sellers make use of the above-mentioned standard contract forms when entering into credit transactions, the purchaser must either sign the contract or forfeit the credit facilities. I am mentioning these considerations only because there are persons who allege that there is no need for the proposed legislation. I may add that continual complaints are being submitted to various State Departments in regard to alleged abuses occurring in the sale of land on instlaments. Arising out of these complaints an inter-departmental committee was appointed a few years ago to institute an investigation into this matter. This committee submitted comprehensive recommendations in regard to legislation which, in its opinion, would be necessary to eliminate these alleged abuses. Inter alia the committee recommended that the following general principles should be borne in mind in the formulation of the legislation which it proposed:

1. (a) all parties that have an interest in juristic acts in regard to the sale of land on instalments must receive full notification of such acts and, where necessary, agree to them;
2. (b) the rights and obligations of parties in terms of existing contracts must not be unfavourably affected by the proposed legislation;
3. (c) the preferential rights of insured creditors must not be prejudiced by the envisaged legislation;
4. (d) the right of any person to mortgage or to pledge his assets must not be affected, and
5. (e) the settlement of insolvent estates must not be delayed indefinitely.

Because, as I already said, it is difficult to formulate legislation in regard to this particular subject, a Bill which was based on the recommendations of the above mentioned committee was published for general information and comment in the Gazette at the end of 1969. A considerable amount of comment was received and discussions were on various occasions held with various organizations which had an interest in the legislation in order to eliminate the objections they raised in regard to the envisaged legislation. The Sale of Land on Instalments Bill which is now before the House, is the result of this comprehensive system of consultation which was conducted with the various interested parties.

I shall now explain the principles included in the various clauses of the Bill. Six or so concepts are defined as is customary, in clause I for the purposes of the legislation. Here I only want to point out that, as has been done in the long title of the Bill, the definition of the concept “contract” makes it clear that the legislation only relates to contracts of purchase and sale of land in terms of which the purchase price is payable in instalments over a period of one year or longer. The cases where a person purchases land, pays a deposit and then takes out a mortgage within one year to settle the balance of the purchase price of the land, is therefore excluded. Because the same piece of land in practice sometimes comprises the object of more than one contract, the cession of the rights to claim in terms of a contract is also included in the concept in question. If this were not the case the provisions of the envisaged legislation could be circumvented by means of cessions.

In terms of clause 2 the application of the proposed legislation is for the most part limited to contracts which are concluded by natural persons and which relate to residential plots in the area of a local authority. Certain bodies as well as local authorities are exempted from the legislation because direct and indirect control is being exercised over the conditions under which they sell residential plots. Clauses 10 up to and including 14 of the envisaged legislation will also be applicable to contracts which are still in force when the legislation comes into operation.

In clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill the formal requirements to which a contract in respect of the sale of land on instalments must apply are laid down. It is regarded as being important that such a contract shall be drawn up in the official language which the purchaser has mastered best. In addition, it is being provided that the contract shall contain information regarding 16 different matters which are defined in the Bill. If these particulars are omitted from the contract, it could in the long run be to the detriment of the parties. Inter alia, a contract may not reflect the same address in respect of the purchaser and the seller, unless that address is the address where the purchaser is ordinarily resident. This arrangement will ensure that purchasers do in fact receive the kind of written notification required by the legislation. In addition it is prohibited that the purchaser accepts the risk in respect of the land he has purchased before he has taken possession or occupation of the land.

I also want to refer here to the provisions of clauses 16 and 17 since they relate to the terms of clauses 3 and 4. Clause 16 requires the parties to a contract to give reciprocal written notice of any change of address. Clause 17 provides that, if a contract does not comply with the formal terms of the legislation and the purchaser is substantially prejudiced as a result, he may apply within two years from the date upon which the contract was entered into the magistrates’ court within whose area of jurisdiction the land is situated to have the contract declared void, or for alternative forms of relief.

It is also regarded as being important that a person should receive a copy of the contract in which he is the purchaser. Clause 5 requires that a copy of the contract shall be supplied by the seller to the purchaser within one month after the conclusion of such contract. If the purchaser does not receive a copy of the contract he may send the seller a reminder and request that he be furnished with a copy within 14 days. If the seller, after such reminder, still fails to do so, the purchaser shall not be liable for the payment of interest under the contract to the date on which he receives the copy.

In contrast to the position in certain other credit transactions the maximum rate of interest on the sale of land on instalments is not at present being controlled. In the first place therefore it is necessary to define the concept “interest”. Secondly, it is necessary to lay down clear provisions in respect of the amounts, apart from the purchase price and interest, which the seller may claim from the purchaser in regard to the transaction. According to the provisions of clause 6 the maximum rate of interest in terms of the contract shall not be higher than that of building societies. The clause also provides that interest shall not be calculated more often than monthly and not less often than quarterly on the outstanding balance in terms of the contract. This clause is in accordance with the general usage in practice.

I have already mentioned that purchasers often forfeit the protection which they enjoy in terms of common law. Clause 7 is aimed at eliminating this problem and certain other prejudicial negotiations.

Clause 8 regulates the position in respect of stop orders and prohibits a person from forfeiting his remuneration or an amount which he receives periodically for his maintenance. Employers who supply their employees with housing, are exempted from the provisions in question.

The provisions of clause 9 provide that the seller shall once during every period of 12 months from the date on which a contract is concluded, furnish the purchaser with a statement of account in order to keep him informed of his financial obligations in terms of the contract. If the seller does not comply with this obligation, the purchaser, after he has sent the seller a reminder and one month has elapsed, shall not be liable for the payment of interest under the contract during the duration of such omission.

The envisaged legislation does not contain provisions in respect of the term of contracts or in respect of the amount of the instalments in proportion to the purchase price and the term. It is therefore possible that such small instalments may be negotiated in terms of a contract that the purchaser is hardly able, with such payments, to pay off the interest which accrues in terms of the contract. Clause 10 consequently provides that the purchaser may at his discretion make larger payments than those negotiated in the contract and may settle any amount which may be owing before the due date according to the contract.

Clause 11 deals with the case where the rights in terms of a contract to claim transfer of land is ceded and where land which is purchased on instalments is again sold on instalments before it has been transferred to the first purchaser. The latter type of transaction is for the purposes of the proposed legislation also deemed to be a cession by the purchaser of his rights in terms of a contract to claim transfer of the land from the seller. One of the problems which is at present being experienced with such succeeding transactions is that one of the middle parties in the chain may become insolvent. Transfers will then have to follow the sequence of the juristic acts and in practice the trustee of the insolvent estate is not prepared to give transfer. The proposed legislation therefore stipulates that provided the alienation by the insolvent is not a voidable juristic act, the cessionary may obtain transfer directly from the registered owner. The clause also makes it clear that the cessionary and any other successor in title of the purchaser may dispose of his right to claim under the contract in the same way as with any other asset in his estate. It may happen that a purchaser who has purchased land on instalments from the registered owner and who has ceded his right to transfer of the land, subsequently fails to comply with his obligations under the contract of purchase and sale. This happens for the most part when the cedent finds himself in financial difficulties. The cessionary will then be unable, without the consent of the cedent, to render performance to the registered owner and to settle such performance against his obligations to the cedent. However, if the cedent with the consent of the registered owner also assigns his obligations in terms of the contract to the cessionary, the latter will in fact have the power to render performance directly to the registered owner. In order to confer this power to the cessionary it is being provided that, if a cedent does not comply with his obligations under a contract with the registered owner of land, the cessionary make make payment directly to the registered owner of the land. Such payments will consequently be deemed to be valid payments to the cedent and the latter shall not be entitled to claim such payments from the cessionary in turn. By making use of this right, the cessionary is left in the position to safeguard his own right to obtain transfer of the land. To ensure that the registered owner of the land shall inform the cessionary of any omission on the part of the cedent it is being provided that the cessionary must inform the registered owner of the cession.

In order to obtain transfer, the transferee must submit to the Registrar of Deeds proof of payment of any transfer duties payable in respect of the transactions by means of which he obtained the right to claim transfer of the land. I want to emphasize that a cession by a person of his right to claim transfer of land is not exempted from transfer duties. However, since the Bill makes provision for the transfer of land directly from the registered owner to a cessionary, proof of the payment of transfer duties in respect of all the transactions in question will have to be submitted in regard to such a transfer. The Bill provides that a cedent shall hand over to send to the cessionary the transfer duty receipts of all relevant preceding transactions. Should the cedent omit or fail to furnish the cessionary with the transfer duty receipts, the latter may send the cedent a reminder and if the cedent does not let the cessionary have the receipt within one month, then the cessionary shall not be liable for payment of interest under the cession from the time the said one month expires until the receipts are delivered. If the cessionary, in order to obtain transfer of land pays the transfer duties, including fines, to which another person is liable, he may by law recover the amount of such transfer duties, including fines from such person.

Ownership of land is not, as in the case of movable goods, transferred by mere delivery. If the registered owner of land sells that land on instalments, he will, apart from the land, also have the contract as an asset in his estate. The registered owner will therefore, subject to the rights of the purchaser, be able to sell that land on instalments again to another person. The rights and obligations of parties to such a transaction are clearly defined in existing law. The envisaged legislation does not therefore deal with this matter. However, clause 13 does in fact cover the case where the registered owner of land or the person who purchased the land from him and then sold it again, uses the contract of purchase and sale of land on instalments to obtain funds. At present a considerable trade in hire-purchase contracts with regard to movable goods is taking place. It is possible that when the proposed legislation is passed, the practice will arise that the seller of land on instalments will assign the contract to another person who is prepared to purchase it. For the most part the seller in such a case will have little further interest in the land or the contract. Clause 12 therefore provides that the person who takes over the rights and obligations of the seller under the contract shall also have power of attorney to transfer the land to the purchaser once the latter has fulfilled his obligations under the contract. The envisaged legislation also provides that the purchaser shall consent to the transaction and the assignee may appoint a conveyancer to execute the transfer. The legislation provides further that the assignee shall immediately notify the purchaser of such assignment so that the purchaser will know to whom he must make his payments. If the purchaser makes payments to the seller in good faith, the assignee shall not be entitled to claim such payments from the purchaser in turn.

In terms of existing law the seller, under a contract of purchase and sale of land on instalments, may immediately resale from a contract when the purchaser omits or fails to fulfil and obligation under a contract. There is no obligation on the seller to send the purchaser a reminder first. Various complaints have been received in which it was alleged that the existing legal position is being exploited. It is possible that a person can lose land which he purchased simply because he was late in paying the last instalment. What is more, he may then perhaps have to forfeit everything he paid under the contract. Clause 13 of the envisaged legislation now provides that the seller must send the purchaser a reminder and, only if the purchaser has after one month after such reminder not fulfilled his obligation, will the seller be able to take action to cancel the contract or to claim damages.

I come now to one of the most complicated problems which crop up in the sale of land on instalments. This is the fact that creditors of the registered owner of land which has been sold on instalments may attach that land and then cause it to be sold in execution, and apply the proceeds of such sale to meet the claims of the creditors against the said owner. For understandable reasons the purchaser, when the land is attached, will be in a very difficult position. In most cases land which has been sold on instalments will have been encumbered with a mortgage bond. However, the mortgage bond will not prevent the uninsured creditors of the owner of land from attaching that land. In such a case the mortgagee may, however, place a reserve price on the land in regard to the sale in execution.

The building societies are of course the principle holders of mortgages on the land which is sold on instalments. It is therefore very important that the position of the building societies should not be endangered by the legislation. Nevertheless it is being regarded as essential that an arrangement should be made in terms of which the interests of the parties to the sale in execution of land shall be weighed up on a fairer basis than is at present the case.

As a result of representations in regard to this matter received from the South African Association of Law Societies, it was decided that a preferential right may be granted to the purchaser of land on instalments in respect of the proceeds of that land if it is sold in execution. Clause 14 (1) of the envisaged legislation provides that the purchaser who purchased land under a contract from the registered owner, shall have such a preferential right. The preference of the purchaser in question shall rank directly after the preferential rights of any holder of a mortgage bond over the land. The purchaser will be able to prove a preferential claim against the proceeds of the land for the amount of the purchase price which he has paid off under the contract, plus interest calculated at 5 per cent per annum in respect of the period from the date of the conclusion of the contract to the date on which the land is sold in execution. The said preferential claim will of course not exclude the purchaser from bringing a claim against the seller in regard to the improvements he has made to the land or the damages he has suffered.

It is provided both in the Insolvency Act as well as in common law that certain transactions entered into by an insolvent before the sequestration or liquidation of his estate may be declared null and void by a court of law. In terms of existing law the trustee of the insolvent estate has the option of maintaining or cancelling the contract, and he need not afford the purchaser an opportunity of taking transfer of the land. This position is now being amended in such a way that the purchaser, despite the insolvency of the registered owner of land which was sold on instalments will be able to obtain transfer of the land provided he is able to comply with certain conditions.

The proposed legislation makes provision for two possible circumstances in respect of land which has been sold on instalments and which is placed at the disposal of the creditors of the registered owner. Firstly, there is the case where the land is not subject to a mortgage bond. This type of case will probably not occur frequently in practice because a person for the most part uses his assets to obtain funds and it may therefore be expected that the person who experiences problems in meeting his financial obligations will encumber his assets as far as he is able to do so.

Before land which has been sold on instalments can be sold in execution, the attaching creditor, or the trustee or the liquidator in the case where the registered owner of the land is insolvent shall instruct the purchaser to take transfer of the land. In the absence of a mortgage bond over the land, the purchaser shall be given six months to pay the outstanding balance under the contract plus interest until the date of transfer. He is also allowed, as the case may be, to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the messenger of the court, the deputy sheriff or the master of the Supreme Court for the payment of that amount.

In the second instance the envisaged legislation makes provision for the case where, in aforementioned circumstances, the land which is sold on instalments, is subject to a mortgage bond. At the high interest rates which are at present payable under mortgage bonds, interest will accrue very rapidly if no instalments are paid under the mortgage bond. Consequently the proposed legislation stipulates that the purchaser shall, within one month of being so instructed, make arrangements to take transfer of the land.

However, the legislation also provides that the purchaser must make arrangements for the payment of the outstanding balance under the mortgage bond plus interest to the date of transfer, or the outstanding balance under the contract plus interest to the date of transfer, whichever is the greatest. In order to safeguard the position of mortgages further, the proposed legislation provides that the purchaser is not entitled to transfer unless the costs of the mortgagee are covered in the case where he has attached land which was sold on instalments. In addition the legislation provides that the purchaser, if he has to pay more than he was liable to pay under the contract by virtue of the abovementioned arrangements, may recover the amount which he paid more from the seller. It is realized that, when the seller is insolvent, such a juristic claim against the seller’s insolvent estate offers scant comfort, but these provisions are regarded as being necessary and equitable in the general public interest.

I have already mentioned before that waiver of rights by the purchaser is to his detriment in the long run. Clause 15 therefore contains provisions which prohibits the waiver of rights by a purchaser.

In conclusion I want to mention that the envisaged legislation shall also be applicable to the Territory of South-West Africa and that the legislation shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation.

I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to the amendments to this Bill which appear under my name on the Order Paper. I shall explain the reasons for these amendments during the Committee Stage.

In addition, hon. members will find that in the Order Paper, page 256, there is a new clause to follow clause 4. At this stage I want to inform, hon. members who have misgivings about this new clause that I will not proceed with the new clause 5, as printed on the Order Paper. Misgivings have been expressed to me in this connection, and I came to the conclusion that I was unable to proceed with this clause.

The hon. the Minister has dealt at great length with the purpose and the details of this Bill, and I do not propose to repeat what it is going to do for the buyer of land on instalments. This question of the protection of a buyer of land on instalments has been under consideration, as the hon. the Minister has said, for a considerable period of time. The Bill was actually published in 1969. We welcome the principles inherent in this Bill and we will support the Second Reading, because we believe that this Bill provides much-needed protection for the buyers of land and buildings who pay the purchase price over a period of time. We believe that protection for this type of buyer is in fact long overdue. It is strange how many buyers are absolute innocents when it comes to this type of transaction and it is necessary that they should be protected. The hon. the Minister gave a typical example when he mentioned the standard contract. It is true that dozens and dozens of buyers of land will sign a standard form of contract with absolutely no knowledge at all of what is contained in that contract. As we all know, the small print in the contract, put small in a contract by a dishonest party to the contract, is something that we very seldom read, however experienced we may be in our particular profession. The written word seems to cast a spell on us, and we are apt to let things go by default. If we do it, Sir, you can imagine the effect on a poor innocent person who is buying land.

Fortunately today a large volume of the land that is being sold is sold through reputable land developers. Today in this country we have land developers on a large scale whose integrity is beyond doubt, and this factor alone has given a large modicum of protection to the buyer of land, because the land developer and the reputable estate agent today probably handle 90 per cent of all land transactions. Nevertheless it is essential that the buyer should be protected, because there will always be people who, because they lack experience, have to be protected against unscrupulous persons. That is why we welcome the provision contained in this Bill that unless certain provisions actually form part of the contract, the contract may be void. We welcome the provision with regard to information that has to be given to the buyer, with regard to statements that have to be sent to him, with regard to interest rates which have to be agreed upon, and with regard to the protection that will be given to the buyer on the insolvency of the seller. That is something which the hon. the Minister dealt with in great detail and I do not want to repeat what he said. Sir, all of us who have had anything to do with this type of transaction know what hardship is caused time and time again where a person has bought land and the seller has then gone insolvent and the buyer is left with a normal claim in an insolvent estate. He will now be given the benefit of a preferential claim, while the bondholder will be protected.

Another important provision which is to the benefit of a person entering into this type of transaction is the provision renting to a cessionary, which the hon. the Minister has dealt with. If that provision were not in the legislation, then I think the whole structure could be disrupted by the purchaser simply handing over to a second person, and if that transaction is not protected, the Act will be of very little value.

Sir, this Bill has been a fairly contentious one, as the hon. the Minister has said. It has been a very difficult one, and that is why it has taken so many years to reach this House. We know that a great many representations have been made to the hon. the Minister by a great number of organizations. We ourselves have had certain reservations on certain aspects of the Bill, and I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the way in which they have listened to the representations that we have made and the way in which they have reacted to them. It has been a strange situation, Mr. Speaker; it is almost as if we have had an unofficial select committee considering this Bill. I think this is a good thing in the case of legislation of this kind. My legal colleagues, the hon. members for Musgrave and Jeppes, have done yeoman work in this connection, and together with the department we have been able to arrive at a Bill which in the main both sides can accept and which I think will be acceptable on both sides. I think what has happened here has shown Parliament at its best, that is to say, where we have the Government and the Opposition co-operating on a Bill which we want but which presents certain technical difficulties. We managed to iron out most of our problems.

It has not been an easy Bill and that is why the Minister has had to put so many amendments on the Order Paper. He has tried to meet the objections and the representations and to remove the anomalies that appeared in this Bill. Sir, this is basically a legal Bill. A controversy has been raging, for example, as to what is the difference between a cession and an assignment. To me me a layman this controversy has grown out of all proportion, because to the best of my limited legal knowledge one simply says, “I cede, transfer, assign and deliver” thus covering every contingency in the one phrase, but we do not seem to have been able to do that here and we have had to have discussions and to make adjustments to take care of certain judgments which apparently are known to few people and should be known to more people. But at least we have dealt with these matters.

Sir, there are still, however, a number of matters which perhaps require a little more examination and we may have to move one or two small amendments in the Committee Stage. These matters I am going to leave to my colleagues to deal with in the main, but there are one or two that I would like to mention. The first is in clause 2. Here the hon. the Minister, while making provision for the application of this Bill, is proposing to insert a proviso to the effect that the Act shall “not apply in respect of a contract relating to land—(i) of which the State, including, for purposes of the application of this Act in the territory of South-West Africa, the Administration of that territory, is the seller or which is held in trust by the State or a Minister for any person; (ii) forming part of a scheduled Bantu area … or of a released area …; (iii) to which the provisions of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963, apply; (iv) of which the Community Development Board referred to in section 2 of the Community Development Act, 1966, the Housing Commission or a local authority is the seller”. Sir, we see no reason why there should be these exceptions. We believe that if this Bill is good for the layman, for the man in the street, its provisions should apply to Government and quasi-Government Departments as well. It may well be said that the State or a province or the Community Development Board or the Rural Coloured Areas Administration would never do anything which may be prejudicial to a buyer. Well, Sir, perhaps if I said that this is a matter of opinion, I could leave it there. We would like to see these exceptions in clause 2 removed so that the Bill per se will apply to every sale of land on an instalment system irrespective of who the seller is. Then we will know that everybody is fully protected.

Sir, we are glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that he has decided not to move the new clause 5. This new clause 5 has, I think, given everybody a great deal to think about because it has merit; there is no doubt about it, but the question was whether the good was greater than the bad or whether the bad was greater than the good. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister subscribes to the view that the bad was greater than the good and that we will do more good by leaving out this clause. I think it originates from the Niemand Commission’s report, when they suggested that there should be this type of clause. I think that where we have to be careful— and the hon. the Minister has been careful —is to note that the Niemand Commission’s report was dealt with and published at a time of exceptional prosperity and economic upsurge in this country, and I believe that a number of the provisions of that report do not apply under normal circumstances. I believe that had we gone ahead with this clause to make provision that a deposit had to be paid at an amount fixed by the hon. the Minister, it would have done more harm as regards providing land for the average person than good. Therefore we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister has withdrawn it.

In regard to clause 6 we have a small problem, one which has also been discussed to a considerable extent. Tin Minister in clause 6 (2) is trying to tie the interest rates to interest rates charged by building societies. We would like to see an amendment in this clause whereby we say interest rates charged by any building society or a building society. We believe that would give clarity to the clause and make it self-explanatory.

In clause 6 (3) we have a problem as well, which my legal friends will deal with to a greater extent. But it seems to us that provision is made here for the non-payment of certain types of costs which would be payable under common law. We see no reason why these costs should not be paid, even if they are not specifically specified in the contract. For example, in subjection (3) (iv), the costs which are lawfully recoverable from the purchaser in connection with the recovery of any amount which is owed by him under the contract is a norm. It should be recoverable, and this clause appears to us to mean that you cannot recover these costs unless there is specific provision in the contract so to recover it. But my legal friends will take the matter further.

In regard to clause 7 (e), which is to be amended by the hon. the Minister, we would prefer to see his amendment not proceeded with and the clause left as it is, because we believe that that would make the position far clearer.

We have had a great deal of trouble with clause 11. This is the clause dealing with cessionaries and sellers. The phrase “registered owner” appears here for the first time. A number of changes are proposed in clause 11 which the hon. the Minister is amending in terms of his amendment which is on the Order Paper. We think this takes the problem part of the way, but we still have certain reservations in regard to this clause, and my legal friends will deal with it in greater detail.

Generally, as I have said, we welcome this Bill. It has been a difficult Bill, but I think it is going to give the protection that the public needs, the protection that no honest seller of land will object to and the protection which honest sellers of land will welcome. I think that generally the Bill will do a lot to raise the standard of transactions of the sale of land on the instalment system, and this is something which is very essential indeed. The hon. member for Salt River has come to me on a number of occasions with regard to the sale of land in his area, where properties have been sold and taken back and sold again and taken back again, and where the seller of the property never intends to give transfer to the purchaser. The whole deal is constructed on the basis that the buyer will not be able to pay and the seller will retain his property. Now the provisions of this Bill will stop that type of transaction. We welcome the Bill and will support it.

I find myself in the position of having to support the hon. member for Parktown in regard to the matters he raised, particularly his recommendation that this Bill ought to be made applicable to all contracts irrespective of whether the purchase sum is paid off by way of instalments. I shall motivate this a little further.

A normal land transaction begins in the office of an estate agent, a man who moves around outside. He has a printed offer and acceptance form. Often he is not a knowledgeable person who know all the finer nuances of the law. He must persuade both purchaser and seller, sometimes late in the night, and subsequently through sheer discouragement some party or other signs the form. That offer and acceptance form produces problems in practice, because in reality it is a contract of purchase and sale. What will therefore happen now, if this Bill should become law, is that an estate agent who in practice brings the purchaser and the seller together, will have to see to it that his purchase and acceptance form fulfils the requirements of this Bill if it falls within the framework of the Bill. But what happens next in practice is that such an estate agent takes his broker’s letter, as it is known, to an attorney and the latter draws up the contract of purchase and sale; and do you know, Sir, that in the eyes of the public a contract of purchase and sale is not accepted as such unless it has been drawn up by an attorney. Very rarely do members of the public realize that the offer and acceptance form already constitutes a contract of purchase and sale. Consequently my argument is that we, in order to regulate this whole field with which we are dealing, should make it applicable to other transactions and we should—this is a far-reaching idea—perhaps consider stipulating that such contracts shall not have legal force unless they are executed before a knowledgeable person, namely a conveyancer or a notary. This is just by way of an exchange of ideas. This does not mean that I do not otherwise support the principle of this Bill. I do so gladly.

As far as the other recommendation of the hon. member for Parkown in regard to clause 6 is concerned, I abo think that we should find a different formula here for the determination of the rate of interest. for we so often find in practice that a building society, for example, does not allow loans on small-holdings, and many of the transactions which will fall under this Bill will relate to small-holdings. That much as far as the reply to the hon. member for Parktown is concerned.

I should just like to sketch the need, as I see it. for this Bill. After so many people burnt their fingers on the share market, they turned to fixed property, to immovable goods. Land is becoming a commodity. When we open the week-end newspapers we see, with reference to land which is advertised in the Cape only, that there is hardly a piece of land which cannot be bought on so-called hire purchase. According to the Niemand Commission there are 40 000 plots in Greater Cape Town alone which are lying vacant and looking for an owner. Just as it is almost impossible for one in the business world to acquire anything without a deposit, the same now applies to land. I still think that unscrupulous developers, those who pretend to be developers, have induced people by means of attractive terms to conclude transactions with them but at a tremendously high rate of interest. Effective rates of interest between 12 to 18 per cent were not unusual. Now it has certainly become the task of the State to protect the most precious of our goods, i.e. land, and to ensure that it is not prejudiced by speculation and by court cases which threaten to take place every day because people have acted unscrupulously.

We want to prevent in this way the fragmentation of land. We want to prevent people from exploiting in an unscrupulous way the ignorance of innocent buyers. Now we are not implying in this way that we want to deny anyone the right to possess a piece of Mother Earth. Let us consider the number of transactions or varieties of transactions which can arise out of this. So for example we can find that A sells to B, B to C, C to D and D to E. The contract of purchase and sale gets lost. E subsequently does not know who the registered owner is. When E wants to take transfer he finds that the original owner has encumbered the land to such an extent that this person owes the building society more than E in actual fact owes him in terms of the contract of purchase and sale. He then stands helpless, as it were.

One finds a situation that with these multiple transactions evasion of transfer duties takes place. Last but not least, in this process it is inevitable that perjury must follow. The last person who takes transfer must state under oath that he is not aware of any other transactions, or something to that effect, and that all transfer duties in respect of cancelled transactions have been paid. That he cannot do. I wonder how many similar statements are lying around in desk drawers throughout our country which the Receiver of Revenue does not know about. Consequently this legislation envisages that moneys which belong to the exchequer will end up there.

What happens further? We find the situation that a purchaser of a property finds that his predecessor has disappeared. He finds that the person who has disappeared made certain improvements to the property. He buys it with the idea that the improvements will be his. He then pays one single instalment, and the original owner comes down on him and in terms of the contract between the original owner and the first purchaser the contract can now be cancelled and everything forfeited. The consequence is that the innocent purchaser must in the end forfeit everything. When this is taken into account, we would like to see legislation being enacted which will in principle afford protection against these possibilities.

The registered owner as seller, from the nature of his situation, enjoys protection, but not the purchaser. The purchaser is also threatened by quite a number of situations with prejudicial consequences which can arise from non-payment of debt by the registered owner or by the predecessor of a purchaser. This can also arise from the fact that the trustee of an insolvent estate may decide not to maintain the contract of purchase and sale of a property on instalments. He then cancels the contract of purchase and sale and all the purchaser has, is a claim for damages. This Bill envisages counter-acting all these prejudicial consequences which such a transaction constitutes for the purchaser. That is why I support this Bill in principle.

As far as particular clauses are concerned, one can ask questions and one can argue this matter. I think however that it is a matter which should be dealt with during the Committee Stage. I may just mention that I think that this Bill should also make provision for sectional titles which, in our opinion, are going to come, as the State President indicated in his opening speech. This, too, is probably a matter which will receive attention in future. It is a privilege for me to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is new legislation which is being introduced and is, as the hon. member for Parktown has already mentioned, important legislation for the reason that it provides protection for purchasers of land who are buying on terms. There is no doubt that in the past some sellers have taken advantage of the less-informed purchasers and have exploited them. This type of legislation, therefore, is necessary to deal with such cases. However, I think it should be made clear, in order to put this matter in its proper perspective, that as is often the case with malpractices, it is just the few who have been guilty and, as a result, have given a bad name to people who deal with land generally. The larger property development companies have, I believe, shown that they have had a very responsible approach to this matter and without exception have not indulged in these malpractices. They, of course, do not need to have this type of legislation in order to protect the purchasers; it is just the few. However, as the hon. member for Park-town has pointed out, we on this side of the House are happy to be able to support this legislation, particularly in view of the fact that most of the difficulties we had arising from the Bill, which is before us, have been met by the amendments which the hon. the Minister has placed on the Order Paper in his name. He has indicated today that he proposes to move these amendments at the Committee Stage. We are happy that he is not proceeding with the proposed new clause 5, because there is no doubt that this is a clause which is not only subject to criticism, but could be the cause of a number of problems.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West has suggested that this legislation should be made applicable to all contracts of purchase and sale of land. We would not be prepared to go that far and it is not necessary for me to go into much detail on this subject, because this proposal is not before the House at this stage. However, we would urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider the exclusion of the Bantu Trust, the Community Development Board and the National Housing Commission from the provisions of this Bill. It may be argued in support of such a proposal that what the Bill is aiming at doing is to guard against prejudice and oppression of purchasers by unscrupulous sellers. It may also be argued that these State bodies can be relied upon not to indulge in these practices. But that is only one side of the Bill, namely to prevent prejudice and oppression.

The other side of the Bill is that there are many clauses contained in this Bill which are giving purchasers certain advantages which they do not now enjoy. These advantages have nothing to do with the matter of prejudice and oppression. I will refer the hon. the Minister, for example, to the proposed clause 9 which provides for a statement of account and to the proposed clause 10 which gives the right to purchasers to accelerate payment. Then of course, there are the important clauses dealing with cession, namely clauses 11 and 12. Purchasers from State bodies may well wish to cede their rights to other purchasers. Those clauses dealing with session, are as important in respect of a purchase from the State as they are in respect of purchases from private individuals. Then there is clause 13 which provides for the limitation of the rights of the seller to take action.

Clause 14 is of course, a great advantage. But obviously, it will be argued that the State bodies are unlikely to become insolvent. Therefore, that clause would not be applicable and that can be accepted.

Clause 15 is also important. It deals with the waiver of rights of a purchaser and provides that:

This is another clause which has nothing to do with oppression or malpractice or anything of that sort, but is a distinct advantage and benefit to a purchaser.

For these reasons and others on which we will elaborate when clause 2 is dealt with during the Committee Stage, we hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the provision which, at the moment, is exempting State bodies from the provisions of this Bill. We believe that these are good provisions. This is a good Bill and a necessary one. Being a good Bill it should apply equally to all contracts of the type which are intended, namely the contracts for the purchase and sale of land under which the purchase price is payable in instalments over a period of one year or longer. We would however, not wish to see the Bill made applicable to all contracts of purchase and sale of land as was suggested by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. Within those limits we believe the Bill should be made to apply to all contracts, irrespective of who the seller is.

As the hon. member for Parktown has mentioned, there are certain clauses which still give us problems and we will deal with them to a greater extent in the Committee Stage. In order to give the hon. the Minister a little time to consider one of these, in addition to those mentioned by the hon. member for Parktown, I would briefly mention the following in regard to clause 11 (7). Subsection (7), as it is worded at present, reads—

That is the handing over of a receipt for transfer duty payable—

One of the problems which arose from this clause is being cleared by the proposed amendment which the hon. the Minister has on the Order Paper, namely to change the word “seller” in the first line to “cedent”. We agree that that should be done and it clears up one of the problems which we are faced with. Even though the word “seller” will be changed to “cedent”, there still remains one difficulty. That is that if the cedent defaults, the cessionary in terms of this clause will be able to withhold payment of interest from the date of expiry of the one month’s notice to the date when the transfer duty receipt is handed over. If it is between the cedent and the cessionary, this may be unobjectionable, but the seller is going to be prejudiced if the clause remains as it stands for a default which has nothing to do with him.

The clause reads, “interest under the cession” only, and not “interest under original sale”.

This is a matter with which we can obviously deal at greater length in the Committee Stage. As I read this clause, it seems to deal with the payment of interest due to the seller in terms of the original contract.

Those are points that can be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take it any further than this. I would merely like to draw this to the attention of the hon. the Minister at this stage so that he and his advisers can give some consideration to it in advance of the Committee Stage. Apart from the matters which have been raised by me and by the hon. member for Parktown, we on this side are happy to support this Bill. We support this Bill on the basis that we regard it as needed and because it provides a satisfactory solution to the problems which exist at present.

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me, as a relatively new member, how the atmosphere in this House changes in sympathy with the subjects we are dealing with here. This afternoon we almost have here the restfulness of a court room as we deal with this relatively technically legal subject. I welcome the calm atmosphere in which this matter is being discussed, because I think this Bill gives a great deal of food for thought. To tell the truth, I think there are so many sweeping implications in this Bill that one should actually have had a clause at the very beginning stating that in future the type of contract envisaged here ought only to be drawn up by solicitors or legal men. In any case, I think that for quite some time it is going to be necessary in practise to look two or three times at this legislation before going so far as to conclude a contract in terms of this legislation. As I have said, there are quite a few sweeping trends of thought in this Bill, and I just want to refer to one or two of them.

In the first place I should like to refer to the scope of the Bill, particularly as defined in clause 2. This Bill only relates to a purchaser who is a “natural person”. It would be a good thing if this knowledge were quickly to spread among practitioners and those persons involved in such sales. This legislation is only going to protect purchasers who are natural persons or the estate of a purchaser who has died or who is insolvent. The Bill, therefore, does not protect corporate bodies that purchase land. The object of this is manifest. It is supposed that corporate bodies, such as companies, executing purchases are persons with the necessary depth, experience and background to be able to protect themselves against exploitation when it comes to higher purchase transactions. This legislation proposes to protect certain persons who may perhaps be uninformed about what their rights are and what kind of protection they must stipulate when they are dealing with contracts of purchase. That is why it is also right that this legislation should only be applicable to ordinary, natural persons. Persons who need protection against their own ignorance about their rights fall into this group.

The scope of the Bill is further limited by the fact that its application is restricted to contracts of purchase where the purchase amount is paid off in instalments over a period of one year or longer. This is a second factor limiting the scope of this Bill. In this measure there is no provision in connection with the minimum number of instalments that have to be made during that year. One assumes that there must at least be two, because reference is made to “instalments”. However, one can also well imagine that some people who want to enjoy the benefits of this measure as far as clause 11 is concerned, could possibly present a transaction in such a way that it does, in fact, fall within the scope of this measure. It could be an ordinary transaction that was not intended to fall within the provisions of this measure. This could happen unless there is an adjustment of the minimum number of instalments.

The scope of this Bill is further limited by the fact that it is applicable to land as defined in the Bill. We find the definition of “land” on page 255 of the Order Paper. This reads—

Transactions in which the land is not intended to be used for residential purposes are therefore also excluded and not subject to the provisions of this Bill. Here one is thinking more specifically of agricultural land, industrial land and even business stands. This definition relates only to properties intended for residential use. Here one finds the object of the legislation, i.e. to protect a certain group of persons who may perhaps in ignorance purchase too hastily and involve themselves in circumstances that will cause them trouble at a later stage. Here I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the intention of the Bill is that this land shall only be vacant land. Our concept of “land” in Roman Dutch Law or in South African Private Law embraces of course, the land itself with everything that is built upon it, including all structures that are above ground or underground. Does this mean that this Bill is also applicable to the sale on hire purchase of dwellings such as those the hon. member for Parktown quoted when he referred to the hon. member for Salt River? I also want to go further. If this Bill also proposes to cover structures or buildings on the land we shall, in the near future, probably have to introduce another amendment after the Sectional Titles Bill has been considered and possibly passed in this House. In terms of that proposed legislation we shall then have a particular title of a portion of a building. If the purchasers of land and houses must be protected, I would imagine that in future one would also argue that the purchasers of flats will have to be protected as we propose to give protection to purchasers in this case. I should like to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that after the passage of that other legislation we shall possibly have to come back and introduce an amendment in this legislation in order to cover those cases as well.

The hon. members for Parktown and Musgrave drew the attention of the House to the exceptions mentioned in the Act, i.e. those lands or transactions to which the Bill is not applicable. It is a good thing that they did so; but I cannot, with all due respect to the hon. gentlemen, quite agree with their arguments in that connection. The hon. member for Musgrave rightly remarked that these transactions that are excluded all have a bearing on cases where the State, or a State institution or agency, is the seller, and that one may therefore assume that in those cases the State will not act unfairly towards the purchasers. The hon. member for Musgrave then continued—and I followed his argument closely—and said that there are other benefits in the Bill that one would like to transfer to the purchaser of State land. He specifically referred to clauses 9, 10 and 11 and to a later clause. He said that purchasers of property from the State under lease agreement should also be entitled to the benefits provided in this Bill for such purchasers. Sir, clauses 9 and 10 embody very few benefits for a purchaser, and I wish to argue that obtaining the benefits of clauses 9 and 10 is really going to make no diffrence to the purchasers of State land. But as far as clause 11 is concerned, which enables a purchaser to assign his rights by way of a cession, I think that it it is specifically a principle in the purchasing of State land that the State wants to know with whom it concludes a contract. I think the State argues that it does not want to be placed in the position where the purchaser can simply assign his rights in terms of a contract to A, B or C without the State itself having any say. Because what is the purpose of these sales? In terms of the proposed clause 2 (b) we are dealing with land being sold by the South African Bantu Trust in terms of the Bantu Trust Act, land being sold in terms of the Community Development Act and land being sold by the National Housing Commission. In all those cases where land is being sold in terms of those Acts the State has a particular interest in who the purchaser of that land is. For example, it does not readily supply a house to a person that already has one in terms of the National Housing Act. That is why the State has an interest in seeing that only this specific person, who bought from the State, will carry out this transaction and obtain transfer. In terms of the National Housing Act, too, if one obtains transfer of one’s property, another restriction is placed upon one to the effect that for a certain number of years one may not resell one’s property, so strictly is the principle vested in the relevant legislation. That is why I feel that there is good reason why the benefits of clause 11 should not be transferred to a purchaser of land from the State or certain State institutions, and as far as that is concerned, I courteously differ from my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave.

Mr. Speaker, clause 11 is probably one of the most sweeping clauses in this entire Bill. It introduces an entirely new principle into our registration procedure, and it is a good thing for the general public’s attention to be focussed on this. You will know, Sir, that up to the present moment every sale transaction that is concluded must be registered in the Deeds Office. If A sells to B, and B to C, and C to D, each of those transactions must systematically be registered in the Deeds Office as consecutive deeds of transfer. In this Bill we are now introducing a new principle; A sells to B; B cedes to C and C cedes to D. Transfer is then made, not from A to B and from B to C and from C to D, but directly from A to the eventual cessionary, D, and this is an entirely new concept in our procedure of the registration of titles in our Deeds Office. I understand the concept was thoroughly analysed in collaboration with the officials of the Deeds Office, that they accepted the principle as such and that they see their way clear to implementing it. But I want to draw attention to the fact that here we are introducing a new principle that is only applicable to the transactions affected by this measure. Sir, at the beginning of my address I enumerated the transactions to which this Bill applies, what the scope of the Bill is and what transactions are excluded according to the Bill. Therefore, a measure of confusion could exist initially among a large number of our practitioners about which of these transactions can, in fact, be conducted merely by way of a cession and which, in fact, must be conducted by way of transfer. I can give this example: A sells to B in terms of this Act; B is therefore a person who is entitled to assign his rights and obligations to C in terms of this Act; but he does not do so in terms of this Act, in other words, he does not sell on instalments, but demands cash. This means that A can transfer directly to C and that B is completely out of the picture. But if I may use the same example, Sir, if C were to sell to D on instalments, it does not mean that in future A can transfer directly to D, because there was at least one intermediary transaction that did not take place in terms of this Act; there must consequently at least be transfer from A to C, and then the cession to E, etc., can be registered. Situations will therefore crop up that will have to be watched very closely by the practitioners that have to deal with these matters, and it would be a good thing if those who circulate information about these matters, for example the monthly journals of the Law Societies and even the Press, were to bring the facts of this situation to the attention of the practitioners if the Bill is passed.

There is another aspect about which I should like to address the House and the hon. the Minister. In clause 11 we speak of a cession of the rights and obligations of the purchaser, but there is no mention of a cession in securitatem debiti; in other words, there is no mention of the right of a purchaser to offer the rights he has in terms of his hire-purchase agreement as security to another person. This is a case where he himself still retains proprietary rights in his contract while ceding it to his bank, in order to obtain an overdraft or something like that, for example. There is no mention of these cases, and I imagine that this is not excluded in terms of this legislation; that it will still be possible for him, according to common law, to cede his rights in terms of such a contract in securitatem debiti to someone he owes money to.

Sir, I have another problem in connection with the contracts of cession that I should like to put to the Minister, and my problem relates to the word “cession”. In clause I the word “cession” is defined as a cession in writing, but one can imagine that the cession could also take the form of a hire-purchase sale and that the terms of the cession could also be such that the land is sold in terms of the cession on instalments over a period of longer than a year. I should like it made clear in this legislation that such cessions, which in fact also come under the provisions of this Act, must also comply with the conditions of this Act as far as the protection of purchasers is concerned. What is the purchaser’s chief protection? We find reference to the chief protection in clauses 4, 7, 13 and 14, and where one has a cession that is phrased in such a way that the purchase price must be paid by way of instalments, as proposed in this Bill, I should very much like to see that cession, which must be in writing, subject to the same conditions as those which the original contract must comply with.

If we look at clause 4 we see in it all the various requirements a contract must contain. Those requirements are specifically aimed at the protection of the parties, and they furnish a certain security. The most important of those, to my mind at least, is probably clause 4 (1) (d), which reads as follows—

This is, in my opinion, one of the most important means of protection for a purchaser, so that he will know that the seller, from whom he purchases, does have that land under mortgage bond, so that he will know that that mortgage bond must first be paid off before he can obtain transfer of his property, and so that he will know that he runs a certain measure of risk if he purchases land that is under a mortgage bond, because it may happen that the seller does not meet his obligations under his mortgage bond. It is important that the purchaser will obtain notification of that, and I think that this clause 4 (1) (d) is one of the most important protection measures in this legislation.

Coming to clause 7, where certain invalid clauses are discussed, I find (b), which reads as follows, to be the most important—

Such a provision is invalid, and I also regard this as a very important protection measure, which I should like to endorse heartily. When we get to clause 13 we see that it relates to the limitation of the right of seller to take action where the purchaser, as we heard from the hon. the Minister, must give notice if he wants to cancel the purchase and give the purchaser an opportunity to meet his obligations. I also regard this as a very important measure. The whole of clause 14 envisages precisely the same protection, and I want to say that I think that it is a very big step forward in the direction of protecting purchasers. One may ask oneself whether the scope of this legislation should not perhaps be extended at a later stage, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein West argued.

Initially the hon. the Minister said that the committee had given consideration to this legislation and made certain recommendations. He said that the recommendations were that all parties should obtain full notification of and agree to the contract; the rights and obligations in terms of existing contracts must not be adversely affected; preference rights of preferential claimants must not be encroached upon; the right to compound or mortgage property must not be assailed; and the winding up of estates must not be delayed. Those were his objects and, in reading through this legislation, I must say that he has succeeded fully in achieving them. I therefore want to support this Bill wholeheartedly.

The hon. member who has just spoken has, I think, highlighted more than ever some of the difficulties that we will find in due course in the interpretation of this Bill, which in itself, as has been pointed out, was a very difficult Bill to draft and to place before the House. I would like to make the general observation, however, that I do not think that our general standards of the sale of land in this country have been bad. I think by and large there has been a very good spirit of honesty and integrity displayed on the part of those who have been selling land, particularly in recent years, on such a large scale, and that in fact very few of the public have been seriously hurt or damaged in these transactions by unscrupulous sellers or sellers who have not tried to watch the interest of the buyer as well.

Furthermore, I think we are dealing with a very much more sophisticated type of buyer today who in many senses is much more aware of the difficulties and problems and the obligations which he has to undertake in the acquisition of land, particularly when he buys on terms. Nevertheless I feel that this Bill—and I think that has been the feeling of the Minister’s department for some time—is an essential piece of law that should be on our Statute Book in order to provide protection for the guileless buyer who very often over-reaches himself in regard to the obligations he undertakes. This Bill will give him the opportunity, whether through a form of cession or other means, to retrieve his position timeously in respect of many of the difficulties which may arise. It will give him that protection and help which I feel are necessary.

There are, of course, still many differences of opinion. For example, certain quasi-real rights are created where the buyer is receiving protection in the form of a preference in a sale in execution over and above ordinary concurrent creditors. That is a very important aspect and it has been the feeling of quite a number of people in this field of land dealing that there should be registration of contracts of sale of this nature on the basis of a caveat so that the creditors are fully aware of what is taking place, just as the position is in regard to the registration of bonds. But I think that is a phase which may take many years before it is realized, and this step is already an important step in the right direction and will undoubtedly create sufficient interest to encourage improvements which may come later.

Beyond that I would not like to deal with any of the details which have been so clearly dealt with by a number of speakers, because everyone is very conscious of the importance of this Bill. I would, however, like to make one general remark. It has always been my belief, and I believe the belief of all business people, that any contract should be seen by the attorney of the one party as well as by the attorney of the other party. More particularly in the case of land I think it would be good that the public should always be made aware of the fact that the layman cannot understand the intricacies in regard to a sale of land with all that it implies. There should constantly be some warning to the public that it would be in their interest to consult their legal representative, in selling or purchasing land. I think that is a very important aspect. I think even this Bill highlights the importance of having legal advice when it comes to transactions of this nature which can bind a person and his family over a number of years. I think it is important and it will also be of great value in the pride which one has in one’s home and the acquisition of land. With these two thoughts, supplementing what those who have supported the Bill have already said, I would also modestly give my wholehearted blessing to the Bill.

The discussion which took place here today, showed me once again how deeply-rooted we are in the soil of South Africa. There is no doubt whatsoever that the South African probably attaches more value to land than most any other person on earth. There is a deep-rooted desire in every South African to own a piece of South Africa. That is why we attach tremendous value to this, and that is why we regard this legislation which has been discussed here today in such a constructive and serious way, as being so important. There is another factor which contributes to this, and that is our registration system in South Africa. Our registration system in South Africa is generally regarded as being the best in the world, and I am very jealous of our registration system. That is why I should like to reply to the hon. member for Bellville that in so far as clause 11 apparently detracts a little from the sound concepts which have always been maintained in our registration system, I do not think that it can do our system any harm. I am aware that we are introducing in clause 11 a procedure which has never before been followed in South Africa. The hon. member is correct in saying that we have always followed a procedure in accordance with which the transfer of land has taken place in our deeds registries in accordance with the transactions in question. If A consequently sells to B, B to C, and C. again to D, all transactions are registered in the deeds registry. It can at all times be ascertained in the deeds registry who, from time to time, the owner of a particular piece of land is. In all the different transactions the transfer duties will be payable and the transfer duty receipts will form part of the documents which are kept in the deeds registry. We will therefore still be able to establish who the various interested parties in this piece of land from time to time were. Since circumstances lend themselves to a cession of a contract and from the nature of the case there are no additional arrangements in regard to the land, or no obligations from the one to the other can take place, I do not think we need have any fear that this will in any way detract from the sound registration system we have in South Africa.

The hon. member for Bellville referred to the definition of the word “land” as is being proposed on page 255 of the Order Paper. There land is defined as land which is used or which is intended to be used mainly for residential purposes. I must inevitably deduce from the first part of the proposed amendment that the definition constitutes the intention that this can also be land on which buildings already exist. The hon. member is correct when he says that our concept of land is not merely the ground itself. This also includes those things which are attached to the land in such a way that they cannot be removed from the land without any damage to it. Consequently it is the case that when one builds an ordinary house of bricks, that house comprises part of the land. A building which therefore stands on the land, is therefore included in the concept of “land” as is being defined here.

The hon. member for Bellville also referred to the right which the seller may have to assign his rights in terms of a contract to another person to obtain financial facilities and so on. I think that this is sufficiently defined in clause 12 of the Bill. I also referred to it in my introductory speech. There it is emphatically stated that the assignee will have a power of attorney in order to transfer to the purchaser. The assignee will by implication have a power of attorney to sign a deed procuration so that he can give transfer of the land to the purchaser.

I do not at this stage want to deal with the various ideas expressed in regard to the clauses in regard to which misgivings to the one side or the other exist. I would prefer to content myself by expressing my appreciation for the fine, constructive ideas which came from both sides of the House. I am referring to the hon. members for Bloemfontein West, Parktown, Jeppes, Musgrave and Bellville and the constructive ideas expressed by them because it is felt that a need exists for legislation of this nature. Consequently we want to see to it that we place the best possible legislation on the Statute Book. As I see matters, the different policies of political parties are irrelevant here. All of us have a desire to formulate this legislation as clearly as possible. That is why I have an open mind in regard to this matter.

Because this is the case I shall prefer not to argue the points which have been raised here now. I shall rather let them stand over until we deal with the Committee Stage. I shall prefer and I shall ty so to arrange it for the benefit of hon. members that we have a few days’ time before we come to the Committee Stage so that we can, if it is necessary, exchange some ideas in regard to what we feel strongly about in the meantime in a more informal way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The only important amendments affected by this Bill are those contained in clauses 4 and 5, and therefore I shall refer very briefly to the other clauses, which, as hon. members will see, propose hardly any significant changes.

Clause I is aimed mainly at modernizing terminology, as certain radio-active minerals are referred to as “source material” in the existing Atomic Energy Act of 1967 and no longer as “preserved material”, as used to be the case.

In regard to clause 2, I merely want to mention that in terms of section 4 of the Mines and Works Act, 1956, inspectors of mines and of machinery have the jurisdiction to try persons who have contravened the regulations or special rules, unless the death of any person has been caused by such contravention. In terms of subsection (2) (a) of the section, the authority of the inspectors to impose a fine is limited to an amount of £5 (RIO). This fine of R10 was laid down in legislation as far back as 1905 and because circumstances have changed so fundamentally in the meanwhile, inspectors are obliged to take offenders to court, even where the offence is not very serious but nevertheless justifies a fine of more than RIO. Hon. members will agree with me that this takes up unnecessary time and entails legal costs for the trade unions. In terms of clause 2, the amount is now being increased to R30. By the same token the inadequate fines referred to in clauses 3 and 6 are bing increased slightly in order to adapt them more closely to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9, too, are merely aimed at modernizing the fines concerned and therefore it is not necessary for me to elaborate on these minor changes any further.

I now want to pay attention to the amendments to the Act which are proposed by clauses 4 and 5. However, I want to make it clear to hon. members at once that in essence, that is to say, as far as matters of principle are concerned, the amendments concerned do not differ from the statutory provisions enacted in connection with the same matters in 1968 with the support of both sides of this House. As I shall explain, my department came up against certain technical legal problems which have up to now prevented the 1968 legislation from being implemented properly. What we are doing here now, is merely to change the modus operandi so that certain objects of the 1968 legislation may be achieved more easily.

The position is that section 10 of the Mines and Works Act, 1956, which was introduced by section 4 of the Mines and Works Amendment Act, 1968, provides inter alia that the Minister of Mines may determine the number of hours which persons may work or be permitted to work in and at mines or works, and furthermore provides that in making such determination he may—

1. (1) determine different hours of work for mines and works or for different mines or works or classes of mines or works or for different areas, working places, classes of employees, etc.;
2. (2) determine different hours of work that may be worked by employees in different circumstances;
3. (3) determine the minimum rates of remuneration in relation to ordinary rates of remuneration to be paid to employees in respect of overtime or work on certain days—such as Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day, etc.; and
4. (4) determine the minimum number of days of paid leave and sick leave to which employees shall be entitled.

In order to prevent confusion, I shall say something later on about the question of working hours. I first want to dwell briefly on the last two matters, namely the determination of minimum rates of remuneration in respect of overtime or work on public holidays and, secondly, the determination of the minimum number of days of paid leave and sick leave. The power conferred upon the Minister of Mines to make determinations in regard to the last-mentioned two matters is subject to a proviso to which I should very much like to draw the attention of hon. members.

The proviso is—and it must remain like this—that the Minister may make no such determination in respect of any mine or works if the Minister of Labour is of the opinion that minimum wages and other conditions of employment in respect of such mine or works are usually regulated by means of an agreement between the employers and one or more trade unions.

As explained in this regard at the time, the relevant statutory amendments in respect of remuneration and leave followed upon representations from the Federation of Mineworkers’ Unions. Their problem was and is that matters such as basic or minimum wages, overtime remuneration, leave and sick leave may in fact be negotiated as far as the large mines are concerned, because these larger mines are represented in central organizations such as the Chamber of Mines, the Natal Coal Owners’ Association, De Beers, etc. In respect of many smaller mines in the Republic, however, such organizations with which agreement can be reached do not exist. The position is therefore that, while proper agreements about these matters and general conditions of employment exist for employees at the larger mines, agreements with which we do not want to interfere at all, the worker at the smaller mines enjoys no protection in this respect. The ordinary labour legislation, chiefly the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941, is not applicable to mines, with the result that in the case of the smaller mines for which no central organizations exist, the arrangements in regard to remuneration for overtime, leave, etc., differ from one mine to another. Briefly, the position is that employees at the smaller mines do not enjoy the necessary protection in this regard—the possibility of exploitation is always there—and therefore this was one of the matters which the 1968 amendments proposed to rectify.

In my summary of the 1968 amendments I emphasized that the Minister would be able to determine only the minimum rates of remuneration in respect of overtime or work on public holidays and only the minimum number of days of paid leave and sick leave. The reason for this was that it was in no way the intention to interfere in any respect with the right of the trade unions and the smaller mines to negotiate about these matters and in that way perhaps to obtain more favourable conditions for employees in respect of certain mining occupations at specific mines.

In explanation of the further amendments now being proposed to the Act, I want to point out that after my department had negotiated with the various trade unions for a long time in order to reach unanimity as far as possible in regard to the determination of minimum rates of remuneration and the minimum number of days of paid leave and sick leave, it appeared after consultation with the Department of Labour and subsequently with the law advisers—and this is the important point—that it would not be legally possible to make provisions of a general nature, as it had been proposed to do. It is a legal question. Legal opinion that was obtained was to the effect, inter alia, that it should be clear from the Minister of Mines’s determination itself for which specific mines and works the Minister had laid down the provisions and that it would not be sufficient to indicate in the general terms of the Act to which mines and works the Minister’s provisions would be applicable, i.e. the mines and works where agreements already existed. However, approximately 1 200 active mines and 40 works in the Republic are affected, and it will be understood that it would not be practicable to make a separate determination in respect of each individual mine or works.

As hon. members will see in clause 4 of the Bill, read in conjunction with clause 5, which proposes, inter alia, to insert two new paragraphs, namely (u) and (v), in section 12 of the principal Act, the only fundamental change now being effected is that instead of the Minister himself making determinations for individual mines or works in regard to these matters, the State President is now being empowered to make regulations in regard to them, after which the Minister may declare any of those regulations to be applicable to any particular mine or works as may be necessary. This will facilitate the entire procedure. As may be seen in clause 4, this may be done only where the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions of employment are not laid down in an agreement or are less favourable than the minimum rates of remuneration and conditions of service which will be prescribed by the regulations—and then only after the employer, i.e. the mine or works, has been notified and has been offered the opportunity of making representations if he wishes. This, therefore, will merely be a more practical method of achieving the objects to which I referred earlier on.

I just want to make a few brief observations in regard to the question of working hours. No fundamental change is being proposed here either. The position is that the Mines and Works Act itself has always prescribed limiting working hours for mines and works, but that the amending Act of 1968 repealed those provisions because circumstances differed at the different types of mines and the old statutory provisions are too inflexible. I say “are” because, as I explained previously, it has for certain technical reasons not yet been possible to implement the 1968 amendments, in terms of which the old provisions are repealed. A second reason is that the provisions in regard to working hours are not applicable to the coal mines, because the working hours there may be prescribed by regulation, which is much more practical. Because the 1968 amendments to the Act do away with the old general provisions in regard to working hours and, instead thereof, empower the Minister of Mines to determine different hours of work for different mines or works or for different classes of mines or works, etc., it will be clear to hon. members that I would first have had to make all the necessary determinations in regard to hours of work for the approximately 1 200 mines and 40 works which have already been referred to, so that the new prescribed hours of work could be introduced simultaneously with the implementation of the 1968 legislation, otherwise there would be no statutory provisions in this regard for some time.

In regard to the proposed determination of hours of work it was also the intention to make certain stipulations in order to prevent an employee from working more than one shift in 24 hours, except in cases of accidents or in other essential cases approved by the inspector of mines. In this regard it is also necessary to prescribe a reasonable average time, say 30 minutes, to get an employee from the shaft-head or other mine entrance to his working place and to stipulate that if this time is exceeded, it shall be included as time worked by the employee, provided that in special cases the Government Mining Engineer may extend the average prescribed time of 30 minutes on application by the mine concerned. What we have in mind is to prevent some mines from misusing working-hour determinations and sometimes letting mineworkers wait too long at the shaft-head or taking too long to get them to the working place without their being remunerated in respect of this time.

In this respect, too, I unfortunately have to say that the law advisers expressed the opinion that the wording of the 1968 amendments to the Act is such that it does not allow provisions to be made which include the above-mentioned matters. Under the circumstances it was necessary to change these provisions and this modus operandi as well so that the State President, as in the previous case, would have the power not only to lay down general provisions in respect of working hours, but also to make regulations which include the question of shifts and prescribe the average time for the transportation of employees to their places of work. As hon. members will see, the relevant wording in clause 5 has been extended to some extent in order to include these matters as well.

I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to the House, because the principles have already been accepted and because the law advisers told us that if we did not do it in this way, it would be difficult, or even impossible, to implement it in practice. Since there is no change in principle, I therefore move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. As I see it, this Bill has two parts. The one deals with penalties and the other with the protection of workers. I want to deal briefly with the clauses dealing with penalties. There are one or two matters in connection with the clauses which I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to us. In this Bill, pounds are being converted to rands; this is simple enough. But while amounts have been converted to rands, in other words, where the amount has been doubled to get rands, I see that there is a discrepancy in the periods of punishment. The periods are not consistent throughout the Bill.

I think we find the biggest discrepancy in clause 8. Section 15 of the Principal Act, now being substituted by clause 8 of the Bill, provided for a fine of £250, which has now been changed to R500, and in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months. In the case of an offence referred to in paragraph (b) of section 15 the penalty is a fine of £500, which will now be R1 000, or in default of payment, imprisonment for a period not exceeding 24 months, where it was previously 12 months. I cannot see why the period of imprisonment should in the first case remain the same, whereas in the last case it is double that what it was previously. There may be a reason for this, but the hon. the Minister must please let the House know what the reasons for this discrepancy are. The new period of 24 months should really be 12 months, as it was previously. I do not think that the hon. the Minister really meant to double up the time in this case. Perhaps he did; I do not really know. In section 14 of the Principal Act, substituted by clause 7 of the Bill, we find that the amount of £75, has been changed to R150 and that the period of imprisonment, namely 6 months, remains the same. I thought that the hon. the Minister would only change the amounts to rands and let the periods of imprisonment remain the same, except that the periods of imprisonment would be changed where fines are increased. In clause 8, however, the term of imprisonment is being doubled, but not the fine. Perhaps the Minister will correct that, unless he has a special reason for doing so. Those are the main points I wanted to make as far as the penalties are concerned.

I now come to clauses 4 and 5. I should like to know from the Minister whether or not clause 4 is similar to the clause contained in the 1968 amendment Bill. The Minister says that he has compared the two Bills and he finds them similar. Did he consult the Mineworkers’ Union in regard to these proposed changes? The mineworkers’ Union apparently does not come into the picture at the moment. He is dealing with people working on the mines who do not belong to unions. I should like the Minister to tell us why these people do not have an opportunity of belonging to unions and why the unions do not accept them, even when they make application.

Order! That is a different matter.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with miners who are not members of trade unions. These people are specifically mentioned and we should like to know why they are not members of trade unions. I think, Sir, that my argument is relevant to this clause. It is most important that we get a clearer picture as to why this clause is necessary. If these people belonged to a trade union, that trade union would negotiate the hours of work, the overtime, the payment for holidays, and so on. These people do not, however, belong to trade unions, and I am asking the Minister why they do not belong to unions. I think this is very important, because it is surely the policy of both sides of the House that a man working on a mine or in a works should have the protection of a union. Those are the bodies that are going to look after the interests of this type of person. Here, because these people’s interests are not taken care of, the Minister takes it upon himself, rightly so, to look after their interests, but I do not know what the motivation was that led to this step. What made the Minister introduce this clause? Who approached the Minister and asked him to introduce this clause? Was it the workers themselves, the Mineworkers’ Union, or one of the allied unions that brought these matters to the notice of the Minister and asked him to deal with the matter, although the miners concerned do not themselves belong to unions? This is most important. How does the Minister fix the remuneration for workers? Does he call a meeting of the workers, and do they then ask for what they think is a fair remuneration, or is this remuneration fixed on a certain scale that has already been in vogue as a result of an agreement between employer and employee? If the Minister thinks that the remuneration of certain workers is not sufficient, or is unfair, he can, in terms of clause 5, interfere and fix their remuneration even when there have already been negotiations between employer and employee. Does the Minister therefore imply that he is willing to be the go-between the employer and the employee and fix what he considers to be a fair remuneration, or is he going to leave this matter to the trade unions? If you read the clause carefully, you find that it is possible for the Minister to interfere here.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.